Archive

Author Archive

Latest Astaroth living-off-the-land attacks are even more invisible but not less observable

March 23rd, 2020 No comments

Following a short hiatus, Astaroth came back to life in early February sporting significant changes in its attack chain. Astaroth is an info-stealing malware that employs multiple fileless techniques and abuses various legitimate processes to attempt running undetected on compromised machines. The updated attack chain, which we started seeing in late 2019, maintains Astaroth’s complex, multi-component nature and continues its pattern of detection evasion.

Figure 1. Microsoft Defender ATP data showing revival of Astaroth campaigns

Heat map showing Astaroth encounters, with Brazil accounting for majority of encounters

Figure 2. Geographic distribution of Astaroth campaigns this year, with majority of encounters recorded in Brazil

When we first blogged about Astaroth’s methods, we noted how it completely lived off the land to avoid detection: only system tools that are already existing on the machine are ever executed. In fact, it was an unusual spike in activities related to Windows Management Instrumentation Command-line (WMIC) that prompted our investigation and eventually exposed the Astaroth campaign.

Astaroth now completely avoids the use of WMIC and related techniques to bypass existing detections. Instead, the attackers introduced new techniques that make the attack chain even stealthier:

  • Abusing Alternate Data Streams (ADS) to hide malicious payloads
  • Abusing the legitimate process ExtExport.exe, a highly uncommon attack vector, to load the payload

Astaroth exemplifies how living-off-the-land techniques have become standard components of today’s attacks intent on evading security solutions. However, as we mentioned in our previous blog on Astaroth, fileless threats are very much observable. These threats still leave a great deal of memory footprint that can be inspected and blocked as they happen. Next-generation protection and behavioral containment and blocking capabilities in Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection (Microsoft Defender ATP) lead the charge in exposing threats like Astaroth.

In this blog, we’ll share our technical analysis of the revamped Astaroth attack chain and demonstrate how specific Microsoft technologies tackle the multiple advanced components of the attack.

Dismantling the new Astaroth attack chain

The attackers were careful to ensure the updates didn’t make Astaroth easier to detect; on the contrary, the updates only make Astaroth’s activities even more invisible.

One of the most significant updates is the use of Alternate Data Stream (ADS), which Astaroth abuses at several stages to perform various activities. ADS is a file attribute that allows a user to attach data to an existing file. The stream data and its size are not visible in File Explorer, so attacks abuse this feature to hide malicious code in plain sight.

Astaroth 2020 attack chain

Figure 2. Astaroth attack chain 2020

In the case of Astaroth, attackers hide binary data inside the ADS of the file desktop.ini, without changing the file size. By doing this, the attackers create a haven for the payloads, which are read and decrypted on the fly.

Screenshot comparing contents of desktop.ini before and after infection

Figure 3. Desktop.ini before and after infection

The complex attack chain, which involves the use of multiple living-off-the-land binaries (LOLBins), results in the eventual loading of the Astaroth malware directly in memory. When running, Astaroth decrypts plugins that allow it to steal sensitive information, like email passwords and browser passwords.

In the succeeding sections, we describe each step of Astaroth’s attack chain in detail.

Arrival

The attack begins with an email with a message in Portuguese that translates to: “Please find in the link below the STATEMENT #56704/2019 AND LEGAL DECISION, for due purposes”. The email contains a link that points to URL hosting an archive file, Arquivo_PDF_<date>.zip, which contains a LNK file with a similarly misleading name. When clicked, the LNK file runs an obfuscated BAT command line.

Email used in Astaroth campaign

Figure 4. Sample email used in latest Astaroth attacks

The BAT command drops a single-line JavaScript file to the Pictures folder and invokes explorer.exe to run the JavaScript file.

Malware code showing GetObject technique

The dropped one-liner script uses the GetObject technique to fetch and run the much larger main JavaScript directly in memory:

Malware code showing BITSAdmin abuse

BITSAdmin abuse

The main script then invokes multiple instances of BITSAdmin using a benign looking command-line to download multiple binary blobs from a command-and-control (C2) server:

Malware code showing downloaded content showing ADS

The downloaded payloads are encrypted and have the following file names:

  • masihaddajjaldwwn.gif
  • masihaddajjalc.jpg
  • masihaddajjala.jpg
  • masihaddajjalb.jpg
  • masihaddajjaldx.gif
  • masihaddajjalg.gif
  • masihaddajjalgx.gif
  • masihaddajjali.gif
  • masihaddajjalxa.~
  • masihaddajjalxb.~
  • masihaddajjalxc.~
  • masihaddajjal64w.dll
  • masihaddajjal64q.dll
  • masihaddajjal64e.dll

Alternate Data Streams abuse

As mentioned, the new Astaroth attacks use a clever technique of copying downloaded data to the ADS of desktop.ini. For each download, the content is copied to the ADS, and then the original content is deleted. These steps are repeated for all downloaded payloads.

Malware code showing abuse of ADS to run script to find security products

Another way that Astaroth abuses ADS is when it runs a script to find installed security products. A malicious script responsible for enumerating security products is dropped and then copied as an ADS to an empty text file. The execution command-line looks like this:

ExtExport.exe abuse

The main script combines three separately downloaded binary blobs to form the first-stage malware code:

Malware code showing three blobs forming first-stage malware code

The script then uses a LOLBin not previously seen in Astaroth attacks to load the first-stage malware code: ExtExport.exe, which is a legitimate utility shipped as part of Internet Explorer. Attackers can load any DLL by passing an attacker-controlled path to the tool. The tool searches for any DLL with the following file names: mozcrt19.dll, mozsqlite3.dll, or sqlite3.dll. Attackers need only to rename the malicious payload to one of these names, and it is loaded by ExtExport.exe.

Malware code showing ExtExport.exe abuse

Userinit.exe abuse

The newly loaded DLL (mozcrt19.dll, mozsqlite3.dll, or sqlite3.dll) is a proxy that reads three binary ADS streams (desktop.ini:masihaddajjalxa.~, desktop.ini:masihaddajjalxb.~, and desktop.ini:masihaddajjalxc.~) and combines these into a DLL. The newly formed DLL is the second-stage malware code and is loaded in the same process using the reflective DLL loading technique.

The newly loaded DLL is also a proxy that reads and decrypts another ADS stream (desktop.ini:masihaddajjalgx.gif) into a DLL. This DLL is injected into userinit.exe using the process hollowing technique.

The newly loaded DLL inside userinit.exe is again a proxy that reads and decrypts another ADS stream (desktop.ini:masihaddajjalg.gif) into a DLL. This DLL is the malicious info-stealer known as Astaroth and is reflectively loaded inside userinit.exe. Hence, Astaroth never touches the disk and is loaded directly in memory, making it very evasive.

Astaroth payload

When running, the Astaroth payload then reads and decrypts more components from the ADS stream of desktop.ini (desktop.ini:masihaddajjaldwwn.gif, desktop.ini:masihaddajjalc.jpg, desktop.ini:masihaddajjala.jpg, desktop.ini:masihaddajjalb.jpg, and desktop.ini:masihaddajjali.gif).

Some of these components are credential-stealing plugins hidden inside the ADS stream of desktop.ini. Astaroth abuses these plugins to steal information from compromised systems:

  • NirSoft’s MailPassView – an email client password recovery tool
  • NirSoft’s WebBrowserPassView – a web browser password recovery tool

As mentioned, Astaroth also finds installed security products. It then attempts to disable these security products. For Microsoft Defender Antivirus customers, tamper protection prevents such malicious and unauthorized changes to security settings.

Comprehensive, dynamic protection against living-off-the-land, fileless, and other sophisticated threats with Microsoft Threat Protection

Attackers are increasingly turning to living-off-the-land techniques to attempt running undetected for as long as possible on systems. Because these attacks use multiple executables that are native to the system and have legitimate uses, they require a comprehensive, behavior-based approach to detection.

Microsoft Threat Protection combines and orchestrates into a single solution the capabilities of multiple Microsoft security services to coordinate protection, detection, response, and prevention across endpoints, email, identities, and apps.

In the case of Astaroth, Office 365 ATP detects the malware delivery via email. Using detonation-based heuristics and machine learning, Office 365 ATP inspects links and attachments to identify malicious artifacts.

On endpoints, next-generation protection capabilities in Microsoft Defender ATP detect and prevent some components of Astaroth’s new attack chain. Notably, through Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI), Microsoft Defender ATP can inspect the encrypted malicious scripts used in the initial stages of the attack.

For the more sophisticated sections of the attack chain, behavioral blocking and containment capabilities provide dynamic protection that can stop malicious behaviors and process trees. Behavior-based protections are key to exposing living-off-the-land threats that abuse and hide behind legitimate processes. These protections identify suspicious behavior sequences and advanced attack techniques observed on the client, which are used as triggers to analyze the process tree using real-time machine learning models in the cloud.

Diagram showing preventive and behavior-based blocking & containment solutions against Astaroth

Figure 5. Preventive and behavior-based blocking & containment protections against Astaroth

These behavior-based detections raise alerts in Microsoft Defender Security Center. With behavioral blocking and containment, not only are evasive threats exposed, detected, and stopped; security operations personnel are also notified so they can thoroughly investigate and remediate the root cause.

Figure 6. Sample Microsoft Defender ATP alerts on behavior-based detections of Astaroth’s activities

Microsoft Defender ATP’s EDR capabilities also have very strong coverage of advanced techniques employed by Astaroth, including cross-process migration, code injection, and use of LOLBins.

Figure 7. Sample Microsoft Defender ATP EDR alert and process tree on Astaroth’s behaviors

We expect Astaroth to further develop and increase in complexity, as long-running malware campaigns do. We will continue to watch this evolving threat and ensure that customers are protected from future updates through durable behavior-based protections.

 

 

Hardik Suri

Microsoft Defender ATP Research Team

 

 


Talk to us

Questions, concerns, or insights on this story? Join discussions at the Microsoft Threat Protection and Microsoft Defender ATP tech communities.

Read all Microsoft security intelligence blog posts.

Follow us on Twitter @MsftSecIntel.

The post Latest Astaroth living-off-the-land attacks are even more invisible but not less observable appeared first on Microsoft Security.

Secured-core PCs: A brief showcase of chip-to-cloud security against kernel attacks

March 17th, 2020 No comments

Gaining kernel privileges by taking advantage of legitimate but vulnerable kernel drivers has become an established tool of choice for advanced adversaries. Multiple malware attacks, including RobbinHood, Uroburos, Derusbi, GrayFish, and Sauron, and campaigns by the threat actor STRONTIUM, have leveraged driver vulnerabilities (for example, CVE-2008-3431, CVE-2013-3956, CVE-2009-0824, CVE-2010-1592, etc.) to gain kernel privileges and, in some cases, effectively disable security agents on compromised machines.

Defending against these types of threats—whether those that live off the land by using what’s already on the machine or those that bring in vulnerable drivers as part of their attack chain—requires a fresh approach to security, one that combines threat defense on multiple levels: silicon, operating system, and cloud. Microsoft brought this chip-to-cloud approach with Azure Sphere, the integrated security solution for IoT devices and equipment. We brought the same approach to securing endpoint devices through Secured-core PCs.

Secured-core PCs combine virtualization, operating system, and hardware and firmware protection. Along with Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection, Secured-core PCs provide end-to-end protection against advanced threats.

Hardware profile guaranteed to support the latest hardware-backed security features

Microsoft worked internally and externally with OEM partners Lenovo, HP, Dell, Panasonic, Dynabook, and Getac to introduce a new a class of devices, Secured-core PCs. Secured-core PCs address the need for customers to perform the complex decision flow of mapping which security feature (e.g., hypervisor-protected code integrity (HVCI), virtualization-based security (VBS), Windows Defender Credential Guard) are supported by which hardware (e.g., TPM 1.0, 2.0, etc.).

With Secured-core PCs, customers no longer need to make this complex decision; they’re assured that these devices support the latest hardware-backed security features.

Hardware-backed security features enabled by default

Secured-core PCs have the hardware-backed security featured enabled by default, removing the need for customers to test and enable these features, which require a combination of BIOS and OS settings changes.

Because both BIOS settings and OS settings are enabled out of the box with these devices, the burden to enable these features onsite is removed for customers. The following hardware-backed security features are enabled by default on any Secured-core PC:

 

Security promise Technical features
Protect with hardware root of trust TPM 2.0 or higher
TPM support enabled by default
Virtualization-based security (VBS) enabled
Defend against firmware attack Windows Defender System guard enabled
Defend against vulnerable and malicious drivers Hypervisor-protected code integrity (HVCI) enabled
Defend against unverified code execution Arbitrary code generation and control flow hijacking protection [CFG, xFG, CET, ACG, CIG, KDP] enabled
Defend against limited physical access, data attacks Kernel DMA protection enabled
Protect identities and secrets from external threats Credential Guard enabled

While some of these features have previously existed, customers had the burden of (1) choosing the right hardware profile that supported all of these features and (2) enabling these features on their devices. With Secured-core PCs, these hardware-backed security features are assured to work on the hardware and are enabled by default.

Advanced security features: Secure device risk, anti-tampering, driver control, firmware control, supply-chain interdiction, and more

The hardware-backed security features that are enabled by default, along with a combination of Secured-core services, seamlessly integrate with Microsoft Defender ATP, lighting up additional security scenarios and providing unified protection against the entire attack chain.

In this blog, we will showcase how Secured-core PC features deliver strong driver controls that protects against threats that use vulnerable drivers to elevate privilege, using the RobbinHood ransomware as example.

Case study: Secured-core PCs vs. RobbinHood ransomware

RobbinHood ransomware is distributed as a packed executable that contains multiple binaries. One of these files is a Gigabyte driver (GDRV.sys), which has a vulnerability that  could allow elevation of privilege, enabling an adversary to gain kernel privileges. In RobbinHood campaigns, adversaries use these kernel privileges to disable kernel-mode signing to facilitate the loading of an unsigned driver. The unsigned malicious driver is then used to disable security products from the kernel.

RobbinHood is not an isolated threat leveraging a vulnerable driver to achieve elevation of privilege. In the last two years, the Microsoft Defender ATP Research Team has seen a rise in the use of vulnerable drivers by adversaries, ranging from commodity malware to nation-state level attacks. In addition to vulnerable drivers, there are also drivers that are vulnerable by design (also referred to as “wormhole drivers”), which can break the security promise of the platform by opening up direct access to kernel-level arbitrary memory read/write, MSRs.

In our research, we identified over 50 vendors that have published many such wormhole drivers. We actively work with these vendors and determine an action plan to remediate these drivers. In order to further help customers identify these drivers and take necessary measures, we built an automated way in which we can block vulnerable drivers, and that is updated through Windows update. Customers can also manage their own blocklist as outlined in the sections below.

Preventive defenses

Two of the security promises of Secured-core PCs are directly applicable to preventing RobbinHood attacks:

  • Defending against vulnerable and malicious drivers
  • Defending against unverified code execution

Defending against vulnerable and malicious drivers

Secured-core PCs are the latest hardware to provide driver control out of the box, with baseline configuration already set. Driver control is provided by a combination of HVCI & Windows Defender Application Control (WDAC) technologies.

Every driver loaded into the kernel is verified by HVCI before it’s allowed to run. HVCI runs in a hardware-protected execution environment isolated from the kernel space and cannot be tampered with by other code running in the kernel, including drivers.

Driver control uses HVCI & WDAC technologies to perform the following operations:

  1. Validity and memory integrity enforcement at load-time and runtime

HVCI uses hardware-based virtualization and the hypervisor (the same hypervisor also used in Azure) to protect Windows kernel mode processes from injection and execution of malicious or unverified code. The integrity of code that runs in the Windows kernel is validated by HVCI according to the kernel signing policy applied to the device. Additionally, kernel memory pages are never simultaneously writable and executable. This makes Secured-core PCs highly resistant to malicious software attempting to gain code execution in the kernel.

In the case of GDRV.sys, which is the driver used by the RobbinHood malware, if the vulnerable driver is successfully loaded and then exploited, the runtime memory integrity check would protect the critical components. Thus, an attack to change ci!g_CiOptions and nt!g_CiEnabled, would be ineffective, as the kernel ignores changes to the variables coming from the general kernel space. And, as code integrity is enabled by default, the malicious driver RBNL.sys wouldn’t load.

The image below shows an event log from a Secured-core PC showing runtime memory integrity check preventing the CI options from being tampered with by RobbinHood and, subsequently, preventing the malicious driver RBNL.sys from being loaded.

Because runtime memory integrity check is enabled by default on Secured-core PCs, RobbinHood wouldn’t be able to disable code integrity on these machines.

  1. Blocklist check

While the most ideal scenario is for enterprises to set customer-specific allows lists, it can be a complex undertaking. To help customers, HVCI uses a blocklist of drivers that are blocked from loading. This blocklist is supplied in two ways:

    • Microsoft-supplied blocklist

Microsoft threat research teams continuously monitor the threat ecosystem and update the list of drivers that in the Microsoft-supplied blocklist. This blocklist is pushed down to devices via Windows update.

We’ve heard from customers that they’d like to provide a list of drivers that should be on the generic Microsoft-supplied blocklist. We’re working on a new feature that allow customers to submit drivers that they’d like us to review and add to the Microsoft-supplied blocklist.

    • Customer-specific blocklist

We recognize that there are situations where customers want a blocklist specific to their organization. By default, any validly signed driver is accepted, but customers can choose to reduce the list of accepted drivers by choosing only WHQL signed drivers. These are drivers that are submitted to Microsoft for signing and are run through a number of tests before being signed.

Devices can apply a custom code integrity policy that customers can use to define their own specific blocklist. This article has more information on how to create such a customer specific blocklist. Below is an example of a customer-specific blocklist that blocks the vulnerable driver GDRV.sys.

Defending against unverified code execution and kernel data corruption attacks

There are several unverified code execution mitigations built-in to Windows. These are readily available on Secured-core PCs.

The RobbinHood attack utilized the vulnerable GDRV.sys driver to change a crucial variable within the system memory. Although HVCI already protects against the attack on g_CiOptions, other areas of memory may still be susceptible, and we need broader defense against kernel data corruption attacks.

In addition to existing mitigations, Windows is introducing a new feature called Kernel Data Protection (KDP), which provides driver developers and software running in the Windows kernel (and the OS code itself) with the ability to mark some kernel memory containing sensitive information as read-only protected. The memory is protected through the second level address translation (SLAT) tables by the hypervisor, such that no software running in VTL0 have access to the protected memory. KDP does not protect executable pages, as those are already protected with HVCI.

Many kernel components have data that is set only once during boot and remains unchanged for the rest of the boot cycle. The first release of KDP protects the static data sections of a driver. In the future, we’re also planning to provide APIs to dynamically allocate and release protected initialized pool memory.

Secured-core PCs have KDP enabled by default.

Detection defenses

As observed in RobbinHood attacks, once the threat gains kernel-level privilege, the threat turns off system defenses, including the endpoint protection agent. Secured-core PCs provide a monitoring agent that utilizes virtualization-based security and runs in this protected environment.

The monitoring agent performs several functions. The ones relevant for this case study are:

  • Secure anti-tampering for security agents
  • Secure monitoring of Windows

Secure anti-tampering for security agents

This monitoring agent watches for attempts to tamper with the security agents. For Microsoft Defender ATP customers, these are integrated into alerts that are surfaced in Microsoft Defender Security Center.

Secure monitoring of Windows

The agent also monitors several areas of Windows, including checking for kernel exploit behavior that are often used to elevate privileges. In this particular case, the monitoring agent detected a token tampering assertion.

Secured-core PCs have both VBS and this secure monitoring agent turned on by default.

Conclusion

As this case study demonstrates, more and more threats are becoming so advanced that they can bypass software-only based defenses. Secured-core PCs are protected from RobbinHood and similar threats by default.

Customers can also get similar protection on traditional devices as long as they have the necessary hardware and are configured correctly. Specifically, the following features need to be enabled: Secure boot, HVCI (enables VBS), KDP (automatically turned on when VBS is on), KDMA (Thunderbolt only) and Windows Defender System Guard.

With Secured-core PCs, however, customers get a seamless chip to cloud security pattern that starts from a strong hardware root of trust and works with cloud services and Microsoft Defender ATP to aggregate and normalize the alerts from hardware elements to provide end-to-end endpoint security.

Overall improved endpoint protection accrues to the broader Microsoft Threat Protection, which combines and orchestrates into a single solutions the capabilities of Microsoft Defender ATP, Office 365 ATP, Azure ATP, and Microsoft Cloud App Security to provide comprehensive, cross-domain protection for endpoints, email and data, identities, and apps.

 

The post Secured-core PCs: A brief showcase of chip-to-cloud security against kernel attacks appeared first on Microsoft Security.

Behavioral blocking and containment: Transforming optics into protection

March 9th, 2020 No comments

In today’s threat landscape—overrun by fileless malware that live off the land, highly polymorphic threats that mutate faster than traditional solutions can keep up with, human-operated attacks that adapt to what adversaries find on compromised machines, and other sophisticated threats—behavioral blocking and containment capabilities are a critical component of the unified endpoint protection delivered by Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection (Microsoft Defender ATP).

Behavioral blocking and containment capabilities leverage multiple Microsoft Defender ATP components and features to immediately stop attacks before they can progress. For example, next-generation protection uses engines that specialize in detecting threats by analyzing behavior, stopping threats after they have started running.

In continuing to diminish the chances of sophisticated threats slipping through defenses, we have expanded behavioral blocking and containment capabilities to get even broader visibility into malicious behavior by using a rapid protection loop engine that leverages endpoint and detection response (EDR) sensors.

Microsoft Defender ATP’s EDR is informed by massive amounts of security signals on network, endpoint, and kernel behavior. As a component of Microsoft Threat Protection, Microsoft Defender ATP also has optics on other surfaces, including identities, email and data, and apps. Microsoft Defender ATP processes and correlates these signals to raise detection alerts that empower security operations (SecOps) teams to respond to attacks. Notably, unlike traditional behavior monitoring components on a device that provides discrete signals from that device, the aggregation of threat intelligence sources provides Microsoft Defender ATP with continuous signals on events that span across machines and surfaces.

With expanded behavioral blocking and containment capabilities, even more threats could be prevented, or blocked if they somehow manage to start running. In this blog, we’ll share several case studies of real-world attacks stopped by behavior-based blocking and containment capabilities informed by EDR alerts.

Stopping the spread of new malware in an organization and beyond

When Microsoft Defender ATP raises an alert on an observed suspicious behavior, information about the process, associated file, process tree, and various such signals that span across devices are sent to multiple classifiers. The rapid protection loop engine inspects and correlates the info with other signals to arrive at a decision whether to block a file.

This results in the rapid blocking of confirmed malware on a machine where EDR capabilities detected suspicious behaviors. This decision is then used to drive protection across the entire ecosystem through rapid blocking and containment. Such a detection could stop an attack on the machine, on other machines in the organization, and other organizations as an attack attempts to broaden its foothold.

For example, on January 10, 2020, Microsoft Defender ATP detected a privilege escalation activity on a machine in a certain organization and raised the alert “Possible privilege escalation using NTLM relay”.

Microsoft Defender ATP showing Possible privilege escalation using NTLM relay

The malware is a new, first-seen variant of the notorious hacking tool Juicy Potato, which attackers use for privilege escalation, a critical step in attacks.

In a matter of a few minutes, using information from the alert, the rapid protection loop engine’s classifiers automatically analyzed the file that exhibited the behavior (SHA-256: ec00ffadffb20954b3809e61d01a965ab1210ce10b5f4b7431bb2a458e31686f) and confirmed it was malicious, stopping and blocking the process. The malware was detected as EUS:Win32/Graphez!cl, and the alert “Artifact was blocked based on malicious behavior in prior incidents” was raised in Microsoft Defender Security Center.

Microsoft Defender ATP showing Artifact was blocked based on malicious behavior in prior incidents

In the next few minutes, multiple instances of the same file were blocked on the same machine, indicating multiple attempts by attackers or another malware to deploy the file on the machine. With behavioral blocking and containment capabilities, not only do SecOps get alerted on compromise attempts; Microsoft Defender ATP also automatically contains the incident while the SecOps performs a thorough investigation to understand and remediate the root cause.

Adding to multiple layers of protection

A defense in depth strategy requires multiple layers of protection. Multiple security components inspect Microsoft Defender ATP alerts for various actions. Auto-investigation and response capabilities kick in to automatically remediate threats. Cloud-based machine learning models in next-generation protection engines also run multiple classifiers to determine whether a file is confirmed malicious and should be blocked. The expanded behavioral blocking and containment adds another layer of protection that helps ensure there are multiple points at which an attack can be stopped.

On January 13, a file named DowloadX.exe (SHA-256: 971bc7eb2be734262a573ca7dc086c334f3a40ae874af90e7f380ec1a6221d7c) triggered the Microsoft Defender ATP alert “A suspicious file was observed” on a machine in one organization. The file was attempting to connect to certain domains to download files.

Microsoft Defender ATP alert for A suspicious file was observed

The file is a downloader Trojan used in a widespread campaign that aimed to deploy various malware payloads, including information stealers, cryptocurrency miners, and ransomware.

Within a few moments of observing the file, machine learning models operating on the EDR data, which come with richer granular details, determined the file to be malware, raised an alert, and provided feedback to the rapid protection loop engine. This insight led to the immediate blocking of the file on subsequent machines.

Microsoft Defender ATP showing Artifact was blocked based on malicious behavior in prior incidents

As the campaign progressed, the file was blocked on thousands of machines that same day, with multiple Microsoft Defender ATP technologies providing several layers of protection. By detecting and stopping the downloader using multiple detection technologies, Microsoft Defender ATP protected thousands of machines from more dangerous malware payloads.

Amplifying Microsoft Threat Protection

Through Microsoft Threat Protection, behavioral blocking and containment and other solutions that are informed by Microsoft Defender ATP’s EDR alerts also benefit from the signal-sharing across Microsoft security services. This broadens defense in depth even further, demonstrating how signals from multiple points in the attack chain allow Microsoft Threat Protection to deliver unparalleled comprehensive protection.

For example, on January 14, 2019, Microsoft Defender ATP’s EDR raised an alert on a new malicious Java Archive (JAR) file (SHA-256: 0d646ac10665f629adde73f1e3bb1afcc69e12a6f286d516c579c6ce0b22e892) based on information from Office 365 ATP. The alert, “A malicious file was detected based on indication provided by Office 365”, means that the malware had previously been observed and blocked in an organization protected by Office 365 ATP. Using information from Office 365 ATP, Microsoft Defender ATP EDR instantly raised an alert when it encountered the file in other organizations, while cloud-based protections blocked the file in these organizations.

Microsoft Defender ATP alert for A malicious file was detected based on indication provided by Office 365

This case demonstrates how various protection components provide multiple layers of protection, enrich each other through signal-sharing, and result in overall better protection for customers. For example, even if the threat arrived outside the context of email, Microsoft Defender ATP would still block the file based on information from Office 365 ATP.

In total, on the first day of the campaign, Microsoft Defender ATP blocked the file on hundreds of machines, indicating an attack that was more targeted in nature, not a massive campaign. The attack appeared to end the next day, only to be revived and blocked on even more machines two days later. The campaign would drag on for the next couple of days.

Further analysis identified the malware as a variant of QRat, a family of remote access Trojans (RATs) also known as JRat or Adwind. If not blocked, it connects to a command-and-control server and attempts to disable antivirus software and security analysis tools. A remote attacker can command the malware to downloaded and run files, access the command line, and steal information by logging keystrokes, taking screenshots, or recording through the webcam or microphone.

Conclusion: Security signals actualized

Microsoft Defender ATP’s industry-leading visibility into threats enable security teams to detect, investigate, and respond to attacks. To continue empowering organizations to defend their organizations efficiently and confidently, we build new and richer security operations tools. Another important way that we further help security operations teams is to block and stop threats when there are enough signals for engines to accurately make a classification on a file.

Behavioral-based detection enables the blocking of new and unknown malware when suspicious behavior is observed, helping curb further malware activities on compromised machines and, as we saw in the case studies on this blog, blocking the spread of malware to other machines within the organization and beyond.

The threat landscape relentlessly serves increasingly complex threats intent on evading detection. In line with the wide-ranging innovations across Microsoft security technologies, we won’t stop improving behavioral blocking and containment capabilities to cover more scenarios and protect more customers.

 

 

Jeong Mun and Eric Avena

Microsoft Defender ATP Research Team

 

The post Behavioral blocking and containment: Transforming optics into protection appeared first on Microsoft Security.

Categories: cybersecurity Tags:

Human-operated ransomware attacks: A preventable disaster

March 5th, 2020 No comments

Human-operated ransomware campaigns pose a significant and growing threat to businesses and represent one of the most impactful trends in cyberattacks today. In these hands-on-keyboard attacks, which are different from auto-spreading ransomware like WannaCry or NotPetya, adversaries employ credential theft and lateral movement methods traditionally associated with targeted attacks like those from nation-state actors. They exhibit extensive knowledge of systems administration and common network security misconfigurations, perform thorough reconnaissance, and adapt to what they discover in a compromised network.

These attacks are known to take advantage of network configuration weaknesses and vulnerable services to deploy devastating ransomware payloads. And while ransomware is the very visible action taken in these attacks, human operators also deliver other malicious payloads, steal credentials, and access and exfiltrate data from compromised networks.

News about ransomware attacks often focus on the downtimes they cause, the ransom payments, and the details of the ransomware payload, leaving out details of the oftentimes long-running campaigns and preventable domain compromise that allow these human-operated attacks to succeed.

Based on our investigations, these campaigns appear unconcerned with stealth and have shown that they could operate unfettered in networks. Human operators compromise accounts with higher privileges, escalate privilege, or use credential dumping techniques to establish a foothold on machines and continue unabated in infiltrating target environments.

Human-operated ransomware campaigns often start with “commodity malware” like banking Trojans or “unsophisticated” attack vectors that typically trigger multiple detection alerts; however, these tend to be triaged as unimportant and therefore not thoroughly investigated and remediated. In addition, the initial payloads are frequently stopped by antivirus solutions, but attackers just deploy a different payload or use administrative access to disable the antivirus without attracting the attention of incident responders or security operations centers (SOCs).

Some well-known human-operated ransomware campaigns include REvil, Samas, Bitpaymer, and Ryuk. Microsoft actively monitors these and other long-running human-operated ransomware campaigns, which have overlapping attack patterns. They take advantage of similar security weaknesses, highlighting a few key lessons in security, notably that these attacks are often preventable and detectable.

Combating and preventing attacks of this nature requires a shift in mindset, one that focuses on comprehensive protection required to slow and stop attackers before they can succeed. Human-operated attacks will continue to take advantage of security weaknesses to deploy destructive attacks until defenders consistently and aggressively apply security best practices to their networks. In this blog, we will highlight case studies of human-operated ransomware campaigns that use different entrance vectors and post-exploitation techniques but have overwhelming overlap in the security misconfigurations they abuse and the devastating impact they have on organizations.

PARINACOTA group: Smash-and-grab monetization campaigns

One actor that has emerged in this trend of human-operated attacks is an active, highly adaptive group that frequently drops Wadhrama as payload. Microsoft has been tracking this group for some time, but now refers to them as PARINACOTA, using our new naming designation for digital crime actors based on global volcanoes.

PARINACOTA impacts three to four organizations every week and appears quite resourceful: during the 18 months that we have been monitoring it, we have observed the group change tactics to match its needs and use compromised machines for various purposes, including cryptocurrency mining, sending spam emails, or proxying for other attacks. The group’s goals and payloads have shifted over time, influenced by the type of compromised infrastructure, but in recent months, they have mostly deployed the Wadhrama ransomware.

The group most often employs a smash-and-grab method, whereby they attempt to infiltrate a machine in a network and proceed with subsequent ransom in less than an hour. There are outlier campaigns in which they attempt reconnaissance and lateral movement, typically when they land on a machine and network that allows them to quickly and easily move throughout the environment.

PARINACOTA’s attacks typically brute forces their way into servers that have Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) exposed to the internet, with the goal of moving laterally inside a network or performing further brute-force activities against targets outside the network. This allows the group to expand compromised infrastructure under their control. Frequently, the group targets built-in local administrator accounts or a list of common account names. In other instances, the group targets Active Directory (AD) accounts that they compromised or have prior knowledge of, such as service accounts of known vendors.

The group adopted the RDP brute force technique that the older ransomware called Samas (also known as SamSam) infamously used. Other malware families like GandCrab, MegaCortext, LockerGoga, Hermes, and RobbinHood have also used this method in targeted ransomware attacks. PARINACOTA, however, has also been observed to adapt to any path of least resistance they can utilize. For instance, they sometimes discover unpatched systems and use disclosed vulnerabilities to gain initial access or elevate privileges.

Wadhrama PARINACOTA attack chain

Figure 1. PARINACOTA infection chain

We gained insight into these attacks by investigating compromised infrastructure that the group often utilizes to proxy attacks onto their next targets. To find targets, the group scans the internet for machines that listen on RDP port 3389. The attackers do this from compromised machines using tools like Masscan.exe, which can find vulnerable machines on the entire internet in under six minutes.

Once a vulnerable target is found, the group proceeds with a brute force attack using tools like NLbrute.exe or ForcerX, starting with common usernames like ‘admin’, ‘administrator’, ‘guest’, or ‘test’. After successfully gaining access to a network, the group tests the compromised machine for internet connectivity and processing capacity. They determine if the machine meets certain requirements before using it to conduct subsequent RDP brute force attacks against other targets. This tactic, which has not been observed being used by similar ransomware operators, gives them access to additional infrastructure that is less likely to be blocked. In fact, the group has been observed leaving their tools running on compromised machines for months on end.

On machines that the group doesn’t use for subsequent RDP brute-force attacks, they proceed with a separate set of actions. This technique helps the attackers evade reputation-based detection, which may block their scanning boxes; it also preserves their command-and-control (C2) infrastructure. In addition, PARINACOTA utilizes administrative privileges gained via stolen credentials to turn off or stop any running services that might lead to their detection. Tamper protection in Microsoft Defender ATP prevents malicious and unauthorized to settings, including antivirus solutions and cloud-based detection capabilities.

After disabling security solutions, the group often downloads a ZIP archive that contains dozens of well-known attacker tools and batch files for credential theft, persistence, reconnaissance, and other activities without fear of the next stages of the attack being prevented. With these tools and batch files, the group clears event logs using wevutil.exe, as well as conducts extensive reconnaissance on the machine and the network, typically looking for opportunities to move laterally using common network scanning tools. When necessary, the group elevates privileges from local administrator to SYSTEM using accessibility features in conjunction with a batch file or exploit-laden files named after the specific CVEs they impact, also known as the “Sticky Keys” attack.

The group dumps credentials from the LSASS process, using tools like Mimikatz and ProcDump, to gain access to matching local administrator passwords or service accounts with high privileges that may be used to start as a scheduled task or service, or even used interactively. PARINACOTA then uses the same remote desktop session to exfiltrate acquired credentials. The group also attempts to get credentials for specific banking or financial websites, using findstr.exe to check for cookies associated with these sites.

Microsoft Defender ATP alert for credential theft

Figure 2. Microsoft Defender ATP alert for credential theft

With credentials on hand, PARINACOTA establishes persistence using various methods, including:

  • Registry modifications using .bat or .reg files to allow RDP connections
  • Setting up access through existing remote assistance apps or installing a backdoor
  • Creating new local accounts and adding them to the local administrators group

To determine the type of payload to deploy, PARINACOTA uses tools like Process Hacker to identify active processes. The attackers don’t always install ransomware immediately; they have been observed installing coin miners and using massmail.exe to run spam campaigns, essentially using corporate networks as distributed computing infrastructure for profit. The group, however, eventually returns to the same machines after a few weeks to install ransomware.

The group performs the same general activities to deliver the ransomware payload:

  • Plants a malicious HTA file (hta in many instances) using various autostart extensibility points (ASEPs), but often the registry Run keys or the Startup folder. The HTA file displays ransom payment instructions.
  • Deletes local backups using tools like exe to stifle recovery of ransomed files.
  • Stops active services that might interfere with encryption using exe, net.exe, or other tools.

Figure 3. PARINACOTA stopping services and processes

  • Drops an array of malware executables, often naming the files based on their intended behavior. If previous attempts to stop antivirus software have been unsuccessful, the group simply drops multiple variants of a malware until they manage to execute one that is not detected, indicating that even when detections and alerts are occurring, network admins are either not seeing them or not reacting to them.

As mentioned, PARINACOTA has recently mostly dropped the Wadhrama ransomware, which leaves the following ransom note after encrypting target files:

Figure 4. Wadhrama ransom note

In several observed cases, targeted organizations that were able to resolve ransomware infections were unable to fully remove persistence mechanisms, allowing the group to come back and deploy ransomware again.

Figure 5. Microsoft Defender ATP machine view showing reinfection by Wadhrama

PARINACOTA routinely uses Monero coin miners on compromised machines, allowing them to collect uniform returns regardless of the type of machine they access. Monero is popular among cybercriminals for its privacy benefits: Monero not only restricts access to wallet balances, but also mixes in coins from other transactions to help hide the specifics of each transaction, resulting in transactions that aren’t as easily traceable by amount as other digital currencies.

As for the ransomware component, we have seen reports of the group charging anywhere from .5 to 2 Bitcoins per compromised machine. This varies depending on what the attackers know about the organization and the assets that they have compromised. The ransom amount is adjusted based on the likelihood the organization will pay due to impact to their company or the perceived importance of the target.

Doppelpaymer: Ransomware follows Dridex

Doppelpaymer ransomware recently caused havoc in several highly publicized attacks against various organizations around the world. Some of these attacks involved large ransom demands, with attackers asking for millions of dollars in some cases.

Doppelpaymer ransomware, like Wadhrama, Samas, LockerGoga, and Bitpaymer before it, does not have inherent worm capabilities. Human operators manually spread it within compromised networks using stolen credentials for privileged accounts along with common tools like PsExec and Group Policy. They often abuse service accounts, including accounts used to manage security products, that have domain admin privileges to run native commands, often stopping antivirus software and other security controls.

The presence of banking Trojans like Dridex on machines compromised by Doppelpaymer point to the possibility that Dridex (or other malware) is introduced during earlier attack stages through fake updaters, malicious documents in phishing email, or even by being delivered via the Emotet botnet.

While Dridex is likely used as initial access for delivering Doppelpaymer on machines in affected networks, most of the same networks contain artifacts indicating RDP brute force. This is in addition to numerous indicators of credential theft and the use of reconnaissance tools. Investigators have in fact found artifacts indicating that affected networks have been compromised in some manner by various attackers for several months before the ransomware is deployed, showing that these attacks (and others) are successful and unresolved in networks where diligence in security controls and monitoring is not applied.

The use of numerous attack methods reflects how attackers freely operate without disruption – even when available endpoint detection and response (EDR) and endpoint protection platform (EPP) sensors already detect their activities. In many cases, some machines run without standard safeguards, like security updates and cloud-delivered antivirus protection. There is also the lack of credential hygiene, over-privileged accounts, predictable local administrator and RDP passwords, and unattended EDR alerts for suspicious activities.

Figure 6. Sample Microsoft Defender ATP alert

The success of attacks relies on whether campaign operators manage to gain control over domain accounts with elevated privileges after establishing initial access. Attackers utilize various methods to gain access to privileged accounts, including common credential theft tools like Mimikatz and LaZange. Microsoft has also observed the use of the Sysinternals tool ProcDump to obtain credentials from LSASS process memory. Attackers might also use LSASecretsView or a similar tool to access credentials stored in the LSA secrets portion of the registry. Accessible to local admins, this portion of the registry can reveal credentials for domain accounts used to run scheduled tasks and services.

Figure 7. Doppelpaymer infection chain

Campaign operators continually steal credentials, progressively gaining higher privileges until they control a domain administrator-level account. In some cases, operators create new accounts and grant Remote Desktop privileges to those accounts.

Apart from securing privileged accounts, attackers use other ways of establishing persistent access to compromised systems. In several cases, affected machines are observed launching a base64-encoded PowerShell Empire script that connects to a C2 server, providing attackers with persistent control over the machines. Limited evidence suggests that attackers set up WMI persistence mechanisms, possibly during earlier breaches, to launch PowerShell Empire.

After obtaining adequate credentials, attackers perform extensive reconnaissance of machines and running software to identify targets for ransomware delivery. They use the built-in command qwinsta to check for active RDP sessions, run tools that query Active Directory or LDAP, and ping multiple machines. In some cases, the attackers target high-impact machines, such as machines running systems management software. Attackers also identify machines that they could use to stay persistent on the networks after deploying ransomware.

Attackers use various protocols or system frameworks (WMI, WinRM, RDP, and SMB) in conjunction with PsExec to move laterally and distribute ransomware. Upon reaching a new device through lateral movement, attackers attempt to stop services that can prevent or stifle successful ransomware distribution and execution. As in other ransomware campaigns, the attackers use native commands to stop Exchange Server, SQL Server, and similar services that can lock certain files and disrupt attempts to encrypt them. They also stop antivirus software right before dropping the ransomware file itself.

Attempts to bypass antivirus protection and deploy ransomware are particularly successful in cases where:

  • Attackers already have domain admin privileges
  • Tamper protection is off
  • Cloud-delivered protection is off
  • Antivirus software is not properly managed or is not in a healthy state

Microsoft Defender ATP generates alerts for many activities associated with these attacks. However, in many of these cases, affected network segments and their associated alerts are not actively being monitored or responded to.

Attackers also employ a few other techniques to bypass protections and run ransomware code. In some cases, we found artifacts indicating that they introduce a legitimate binary and use Alternate Data Streams to masquerade the execution of the ransomware binary as legitimate binary.

Command prmpt dump output of the Alternate Data Stream

Figure 8. Command prompt dump output of the Alternate Data Stream

The Doppelpaymer ransomware binary used in many attacks are signed using what appears to be stolen certificates from OFFERS CLOUD LTD, which might be trusted by various security solutions.

Doppelpaymer encrypts various files and displays a ransom note. In observed cases, it uses a custom extension name for encrypted files using information about the affected environment. For example, it has used l33tspeak versions of company names and company phone numbers.

Notably, Doppelpaymer campaigns do not fully infect compromised networks with ransomware. Only a subset of the machines have the malware binary and a slightly smaller subset have their files encrypted. The attackers maintain persistence on machines that don’t have the ransomware and appear intent to use these machines to come back to networks that pay the ransom or do not perform a full incident response and recovery.

Ryuk: Human-operated ransomware initiated from Trickbot infections

Ryuk is another active human-operated ransomware campaign that wreaks havoc on organizations, from corporate entities to local governments to non-profits by disrupting businesses and demanding massive ransom. Ryuk originated as a ransomware payload distributed over email, and but it has since been adopted by human operated ransomware operators.

Like Doppelpaymer, Ryuk is one of possible eventual payloads delivered by human operators that enter networks via banking Trojan infections, in this case Trickbot. At the beginning of a Ryuk infection, an existing Trickbot implant downloads a new payload, often Cobalt Strike or PowerShell Empire, and begins to move laterally across a network, activating the Trickbot infection for ransomware deployment. The use of Cobalt Strike beacon or a PowerShell Empire payload gives operators more maneuverability and options for lateral movement on a network. Based on our investigation, in some networks, this may also provide the added benefit to the attackers of blending in with red team activities and tools.

In our investigations, we found that this activation occurs on Trickbot implants of varying ages, indicating that the human operators behind Ryuk likely have some sort of list of check-ins and targets for deployment of the ransomware. In many cases, however, this activation phase comes well after the initial Trickbot infection, and the eventual deployment of a ransomware payload may happen weeks or even months after the initial infection.

In many networks, Trickbot, which can be distributed directly via email or as a second-stage payload to other Trojans like Emotet, is often considered a low-priority threat, and not remediated and isolated with the same degree of scrutiny as other, more high-profile malware. This works in favor of attackers, allowing them to have long-running persistence on a wide variety of networks. Trickbot, and the Ryuk operators, also take advantage of users running as local administrators in environments and use these permissions to disable security tools that would otherwise impede their actions.

Figure 9. Ryuk infection chain

Once the operators have activated on a network, they utilize their Cobalt Strike or PowerShell tools to initiate reconnaissance and lateral movement on a network. Their initial steps are usually to use built-in commands such as net group to enumerate group membership of high-value groups like domain administrators and enterprise administrators, and to identify targets for credential theft.

Ryuk operators then use a variety of techniques to steal credentials, including the LaZagne credential theft tool. The attackers also save various registry hives to extract credentials from Local Accounts and the LSA Secrets portion of the registry that stores passwords of service accounts, as well as Scheduled Tasks configured to auto start with a defined account. In many cases, services like security and systems management software are configured with privileged accounts, such as domain administrator; this makes it easy for Ryuk operators to migrate from an initial desktop to server-class systems and domain controllers. In addition, in many environments successfully compromised by Ryuk, operators are able to utilize the built-in administrator account to move laterally, as these passwords are matching and not randomized.

Once they have performed initial basic reconnaissance and credential theft, the attackers in some cases utilize the open source security audit tool known as BloodHound to gather detailed information about the Active Directory environment and probable attack paths. This data and associated stolen credentials are accessed by the attacker and likely retained, even after the ransomware portion is ended.

The attackers then continue to move laterally to higher value systems, inspecting and enumerating files of interest to them as they go, possibly exfiltrating this data. The attackers then elevate to domain administrator and utilize these permissions to deploy the Ryuk payload.

The ransomware deployment often occurs weeks or even months after the attackers begin activity on a network. The Ryuk operators use stolen Domain Admin credentials, often from an interactive logon session on a domain controller, to distribute the Ryuk payload. They have been seen doing this via Group Policies, setting a startup item in the SYSVOL share, or, most commonly in recent attacks, via PsExec sessions emanating from the domain controller itself.

Improving defenses to stop human-operated ransomware

In human-operated ransomware campaigns, even if the ransom is paid, some attackers remain active on affected networks with persistence via PowerShell Empire and other malware on machines that may seem unrelated to ransomware activities. To fully recover from human-powered ransomware attacks, comprehensive incident response procedures and subsequent network hardening need to be performed.

As we have learned from the adaptability and resourcefulness of attackers, human-operated campaigns are intent on circumventing protections and cleverly use what’s available to them to achieve their goal, motivated by profit. The techniques and methods used by the human-operated ransomware attacks we discussed in this blog highlight these important lessons in security:

  1. IT pros play an important role in security

Some of the most successful human-operated ransomware campaigns have been against servers that have antivirus software and other security intentionally disabled, which admins may do to improve performance. Many of the observed attacks leverage malware and tools that are already detected by antivirus. The same servers also often lack firewall protection and MFA, have weak domain credentials, and use non-randomized local admin passwords. Oftentimes these protections are not deployed because there is a fear that security controls will disrupt operations or impact performance. IT pros can help with determining the true impact of these settings and collaborate with security teams on mitigations.

Attackers are preying on settings and configurations that many IT admins manage and control. Given the key role they play, IT pros should be part of security teams.

  1. Seemingly rare, isolated, or commodity malware alerts can indicate new attacks unfolding and offer the best chance to prevent larger damage

Human-operated attacks involve a fairly lengthy and complex attack chain before the ransomware payload is deployed. The earlier steps involve activities like commodity malware infections and credential theft that Microsoft Defender ATP detects and raises alerts on. If these alerts are immediately prioritized, security operations teams can better mitigate attacks and prevent the ransomware payload. Commodity malware infections like Emotet, Dridex, and Trickbot should be remediated and treated as a potential full compromise of the system, including any credentials present on it.

  1. Truly mitigating modern attacks requires addressing the infrastructure weakness that let attackers in

Human-operated ransomware groups routinely hit the same targets multiple times. This is typically due to failure to eliminate persistence mechanisms, which allow the operators to go back and deploy succeeding rounds of payloads, as targeted organizations focus on working to resolve the ransomware infections.

Organizations should focus less on resolving alerts in the shortest possible time and more on investigating the attack surface that allowed the alert to happen. This requires understanding the entire attack chain, but more importantly, identifying and fixing the weaknesses in the infrastructure to keep attackers out.

While Wadhrama, Doppelpaymer, Ryuk, Samas, REvil, and other human-operated attacks require a shift in mindset, the challenges they pose are hardly unique.

Removing the ability of attackers to move laterally from one machine to another in a network would make the impact of human-operated ransomware attacks less devastating and make the network more resilient against all kinds of cyberattacks. The top recommendations for mitigating ransomware and other human-operated campaigns are to practice credential hygiene and stop unnecessary communication between endpoints.

Here are relevant mitigation actions that enterprises can apply to build better security posture and be more resistant against cyberattacks in general:

  • Harden internet-facing assets and ensure they have the latest security updates. Use threat and vulnerability management to audit these assets regularly for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and suspicious activity.
  • Secure Remote Desktop Gateway using solutions like Azure Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA). If you don’t have an MFA gateway, enable network-level authentication (NLA).
  • Practice the principle of least-privilege and maintain credential hygiene. Avoid the use of domain-wide, admin-level service accounts. Enforce strong randomized, just-in-time local administrator passwords. Use tools like LAPS.
  • Monitor for brute-force attempts. Check excessive failed authentication attempts (Windows security event ID 4625).
  • Monitor for clearing of Event Logs, especially the Security Event log and PowerShell Operational logs. Microsoft Defender ATP raises the alert “Event log was cleared” and Windows generates an Event ID 1102 when this occurs.
  • Turn on tamper protection features to prevent attackers from stopping security services.
  • Determine where highly privileged accounts are logging on and exposing credentials. Monitor and investigate logon events (event ID 4624) for logon type attributes. Domain admin accounts and other accounts with high privilege should not be present on workstations.
  • Turn on cloud-delivered protection and automatic sample submission on Windows Defender Antivirus. These capabilities use artificial intelligence and machine learning to quickly identify and stop new and unknown threats.
  • Turn on attack surface reduction rules, including rules that block credential theft, ransomware activity, and suspicious use of PsExec and WMI. To address malicious activity initiated through weaponized Office documents, use rules that block advanced macro activity, executable content, process creation, and process injection initiated by Office applications Other. To assess the impact of these rules, deploy them in audit mode.
  • Turn on AMSI for Office VBA if you have Office 365.
  • Utilize the Windows Defender Firewall and your network firewall to prevent RPC and SMB communication among endpoints whenever possible. This limits lateral movement as well as other attack activities.

Figure 10. Improving defenses against human-operated ransomware

How Microsoft empowers customers to combat human-operated attacks

The rise of adaptable, resourceful, and persistent human-operated attacks characterizes the need for advanced protection on multiple attack surfaces. Microsoft Threat Protection delivers comprehensive protection for identities, endpoints, data, apps, and infrastructure. Through built-intelligence, automation, and integration, Microsoft Threat Protection combines and orchestrates into a single solution the capabilities of Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection (ATP), Office 365 ATP, Azure ATP, and Microsoft Cloud App Security, providing customers integrated security and unparalleled visibility across attack vectors.

Building an optimal organizational security posture is key to defending networks against human-operated attacks and other sophisticated threats. Microsoft Secure Score assesses and measures an organization’s security posture and provides recommended improvement actions, guidance, and control. Using a centralized dashboard in Microsoft 365 security center, organizations can compare their security posture with benchmarks and establish key performance indicators (KPIs).

On endpoints, Microsoft Defender ATP provides unified protection, investigation, and response capabilities. Durable machine learning and behavior-based protections detect human-operated campaigns at multiple points in the attack chain, before the ransomware payload is deployed. These advanced detections raise alerts on the Microsoft Defender Security Center, enabling security operations teams to immediately respond to attacks using the rich capabilities in Microsoft Defender ATP.

The Threat and Vulnerability Management capability uses a risk-based approach to the discovery, prioritization, and remediation of misconfigurations and vulnerabilities on endpoints. Notably, it allows security administrators and IT administrators to collaborate seamlessly to remediate issues. For example, through Microsoft Defender ATP’s integration with Microsoft Intune and System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM), security administrators can create a remediation task in Microsoft Intune with one click.

Microsoft experts have been tracking multiple human operated ransomware groups. To further help customers, we released a Microsoft Defender ATP Threat Analytics report on the campaigns and mitigations against the attack. Through Threat Analytics, customers can see indicators of Wadhrama, Doppelpaymer, Samas, and other campaign activities in their environments and get details and recommendations that are designed to help security operations teams to investigate and respond to attacks. The reports also include relevant advanced hunting queries that can further help security teams look for signs of attacks in their network.

Customers subscribed to Microsoft Threat Experts, the managed threat hunting service in Microsoft Defender ATP, get targeted attack notification on emerging ransomware campaigns that our experts find during threat hunting. The email notifications are designed to inform customers about threats that they need to prioritize, as well as critical information like timeline of events, affected machines, and indicators of compromise, which help in investigating and mitigating attacks. Additionally, with experts on demand, customers can engage directly with Microsoft security analysts to get guidance and insights to better understand, prevent, and respond to human-operated attacks and other complex threats.

 

Microsoft Threat Protection Intelligence Team

 

The post Human-operated ransomware attacks: A preventable disaster appeared first on Microsoft Security.

Ghost in the shell: Investigating web shell attacks

February 4th, 2020 No comments

Recently, an organization in the public sector discovered that one of their internet-facing servers was misconfigured and allowed attackers to upload a web shell, which let the adversaries gain a foothold for further compromise. The organization enlisted the services of Microsoft’s Detection and Response Team (DART) to conduct a full incident response and remediate the threat before it could cause further damage.

DART’s investigation showed that the attackers uploaded a web shell in multiple folders on the web server, leading to the subsequent compromise of service accounts and domain admin accounts. This allowed the attackers to perform reconnaissance using net.exe, scan for additional target systems using nbstat.exe, and eventually move laterally using PsExec.

The attackers installed additional web shells on other systems, as well as a DLL backdoor on an Outlook Web Access (OWA) server. To persist on the server, the backdoor implant registered itself as a service or as an Exchange transport agent, which allowed it to access and intercept all incoming and outgoing emails, exposing sensitive information. The backdoor also performed additional discovery activities as well as downloaded other malware payloads. In addition, the attackers sent special emails that the DLL backdoor interpreted as commands.

Figure 1. Sample web shell attack chain

The case is one of increasingly more common incidents of web shell attacks affecting multiple organizations in various sectors. A web shell is a piece of malicious code, often written in typical web development programming languages (e.g., ASP, PHP, JSP), that attackers implant on web servers to provide remote access and code execution to server functions. Web shells allow adversaries to execute commands and to steal data from a web server or use the server as launch pad for further attacks against the affected organization.

With the use of web shells in cyberattacks on the rise, Microsoft’s DART, the Microsoft Defender ATP Research Team, and the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Center (MSTIC) have been working together to investigate and closely monitor this threat.

Web shell attacks in the current threat landscape

Multiple threat actors, including ZINC, KRYPTON, and GALLIUM, have been observed utilizing web shells in their campaigns. To implant web shells, adversaries take advantage of security gaps in internet-facing web servers, typically vulnerabilities in web applications, for example CVE-2019-0604 or CVE-2019-16759.

In our investigations into these types of attacks, we have seen web shells within files that attempt to hide or blend in by using names commonly used for legitimate files in web servers, for example:

  • index.aspx
  • fonts.aspx
  • css.aspx
  • global.aspx
  • default.php
  • function.php
  • Fileuploader.php
  • help.js
  • write.jsp
  • 31.jsp

Among web shells used by threat actors, the China Chopper web shell is one of the most widely used. One example is written in JSP:

We have seen this malicious JSP code within a specially crafted file uploaded to web servers:

Figure 2. Specially crafted image file with malicious JSP code

Another China Chopper variant is written in PHP:

Meanwhile, the KRYPTON group uses a bespoke web shell written in C# within an ASP.NET page:

Figure 3. Web shell written in C# within an ASP.NET page

Once a web shell is successfully inserted into a web server, it can allow remote attackers to perform various tasks on the web server. Web shells can steal data, perpetrate watering hole attacks, and run other malicious commands for further compromise.

Web shell attacks have affected a wide range of industries. The organization in the public sector mentioned above represents one of the most common targeted sectors.

Aside from exploiting vulnerabilities in web applications or web servers, attackers take advantage of other weaknesses in internet-facing servers. These include the lack of the latest security updates, antivirus tools, network protection, proper security configuration, and informed security monitoring. Interestingly, we observed that attacks usually occur on weekends or during off-hours, when attacks are likely not immediately spotted and responded to.

Unfortunately, these gaps appear to be widespread, given that every month, Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) detects an average of 77,000 web shell and related artifacts on an average of 46,000 distinct machines.

Figure 3: Web shell encounters 

Detecting and mitigating web shell attacks

Because web shells are a multi-faceted threat, enterprises should build comprehensive defenses for multiple attack surfaces. Microsoft Threat Protection provides unified protection for identities, endpoints, email and data, apps, and infrastructure. Through signal-sharing across Microsoft services, customers can leverage Microsoft’s industry-leading optics and security technologies to combat web shells and other threats.

Gaining visibility into internet-facing servers is key to detecting and addressing the threat of web shells. The installation of web shells can be detected by monitoring web application directories for web script file writes. Applications such as Outlook Web Access (OWA) rarely change after they have been installed and script writes to these application directories should be treated as suspicious.

After installation, web shell activity can be detected by analyzing processes created by the Internet Information Services (IIS) process w3wp.exe. Sequences of processes that are associated with reconnaissance activity such as those identified in the alert screenshot (net.exe, ping.exe, systeminfo.exe, and hostname.exe) should be treated with suspicion. Web applications such as OWA run from well-defined Application Pools. Any cmd.exe process execution by w3wp.exe running from an application pool that doesn’t typically execute processes such as ‘MSExchangeOWAAppPool’ should be treated as unusual and regarded as potentially malicious.

Microsoft Defender ATP exposes these behaviors that indicate web shell installation and post-compromise activity by analyzing script file writes and process executions. When alerted of these activities, security operations teams can then use the rich capabilities in Microsoft Defender ATP to investigate and resolve web shell attacks.

Figure 4. Sample Microsoft Defender ATP alerts related to web shell attacks

Figure 5. Microsoft Defender ATP alert process tree

As in most security issues, prevention is critical. Organizations can harden systems against web shell attacks by taking these preventive steps:

  • Identify and remediate vulnerabilities or misconfigurations in web applications and web servers. Deploy latest security updates as soon as they become available.
  • Audit and review logs from web servers frequently. Be aware of all systems you expose directly to the internet.
  • Utilize the Windows Defender Firewall, intrusion prevention devices, and your network firewall to prevent command-and-control server communication among endpoints whenever possible. This limits lateral movement as well as other attack activities.
  • Check your perimeter firewall and proxy to restrict unnecessary access to services, including access to services through non-standard ports.
  • Enable cloud-delivered protection to get the latest defenses against new and emerging threats.
  • Educate end users about preventing malware infections. Encourage end users to practice good credential hygiene—limit the use of accounts with local or domain admin privileges.

 

 

Detection and Response Team (DART)

Microsoft Defender ATP Research Team

Microsoft Threat Intelligence Center (MSTIC)

 

The post Ghost in the shell: Investigating web shell attacks appeared first on Microsoft Security.

sLoad launches version 2.0, Starslord

January 21st, 2020 No comments

sLoad, the PowerShell-based Trojan downloader notable for its almost exclusive use of the Windows BITS service for malicious activities, has launched version 2.0. The new version comes on the heels of a comprehensive blog we published detailing the malware’s multi-stage nature and use of BITS as alternative protocol for data exfiltration and other behaviors.

With the new version, sLoad has added the ability to track the stage of infection on every affected machine. Version 2.0 also packs an anti-analysis trick that could identify and isolate analyst machines vis-à-vis actual infected machines.

We’re calling the new version “Starslord” based on strings in the malware code, which has clues indicating that the name “sLoad” may have been derived from a popular comic book superhero.

We discovered the new sLoad version over the holidays, in our continuous monitoring of the malware. New sLoad campaigns that use version 2.0 follow an attack chain similar to the previous version, with some updates, including dropping the dynamic list of command-and-control (C2) servers and upload of screenshots.

Tracking the stage of infection

With the ability to track the stage of infection, malware operators with access to the Starslord backend could build a detailed view of infections across affected machines and segregate these machines into different groups.

The tracking mechanism exists in the final-stage, which, as with the old version, loops infinitely (with sleep interval of 2400 seconds, higher than the 1200 seconds in version 1.0). In line with the previous version, at every iteration of the final stage, the malware uses a download BITS job to exfiltrate stolen system information and receive additional payloads from the active C2 server.

As we noted in our previous blog, creating a BITS job with an extremely large RemoteURL parameter that includes non-encrypted system information, as the old sLoad version did, stands out and is relatively easy to detect. However, with Starslord, the system information is encoded into Base64 data before being exfiltrated.

The file received by Starslord in response to the exfiltration BITS job contains a tuple of three values separated by an asterisk (*):

  • Value #1 is a URL to download additional payload using a download BITS job
  • Value #2 specifies the action, which can be any of the following, to be taken on the payload downloaded from the URL in value#1:
    • “eval” – Run (possibly very large) PowerShell scripts
    • “iex” – Load and invoke (possibly small) PowerShell code
    • “run” – Download encoded PE file, decode using exe, and run the decoded executable
  • Value #3 is an integer that can signify the stage of infection for the machine

Supplying the payload URL as part of value #1 allows the malware infrastructure to house additional payloads on different servers from the active C2 servers responding to the exfiltration BITS jobs.

Value#3 is the most noteworthy component in this setup. If the final stage succeeds in downloading additional payload using the URL provided in value #1 and executing it as specified by the command in value #2, then a variable is used to form the string “td”:”<value#3>”,”tds”:”3”. However, if the final stage fails to download and execute the payload, then the string formed is “td”:”<value #3>”,”tds”:”4”.

The infinite loop ensures that the exfiltration BITS jobs are created at a fixed interval. The backend infrastructure can then pick up the pulse from each infected machine. However, unlike the previous version, Starslord includes the said string in succeeding iterations of data exfiltration. This means that the malware infrastructure is always aware of the exact stage of the infection for a specific affected machine. In addition, since the numeric value for value #3 in the tuple is always governed by the malware infrastructure, malware operators can compartmentalize infected hosts and could potentially set off individual groups on unique infection paths. For example, when responding to exfiltration BITS jobs, malware operators can specify a different URL (value #1) and action (value #2) for each numeric value for value #3 of the tuple, essentially deploying a different malware payload for different groups.

Anti-analysis trap

Starslord comes built-in with a function named checkUniverse, which is in-fact an anti-analysis trap.

As mentioned in our previous blog post, the final stage of sLoad is a piece of PowerShell code obtained by decoding one of the dropped .ini files. The PowerShell code appears in the memory as a value assigned to a variable that is then executed using the Invoke-Expression cmdlet. Because this is a huge piece of decrypted PowerShell code that never hits the disk, security researchers would typically dump it into a file on the disk for further analysis.

The sLoad dropper PowerShell script drops four files:

  • a randomly named .tmp file
  • a randomly named .ps1 file
  • a ini file
  • a ini file

It then creates a scheduled task to run the .tmp file every 3 minutes, similar to the previous version. The .tmp file is a proxy that does nothing but run the .ps1 file, which decrypts the contents of main.ini into the final stage. The final stage then decrypts contents of domain.ini to obtain active C2 and perform other activities as documented.

As a unique anti-analysis trap, Starslord ensures that the .tmp and.ps1 files have the same random name. When an analyst dumps the decrypted code of the final stage into a file in the same folder as the .tmp and .ps1 files, the analyst could end up naming it something other than the original random name. When this dumped code is run from such differently named file on the disk, a function named checkUniverse returns the value 1, and the analyst gets trapped:

What comes next is not very desirable for a security researcher: being profiled by the malware operator.

If the host belongs to a trapped analyst, the file downloaded from the backend in response to the exfiltration BITS job, if any, is discarded and overwritten by the following new tuple:

hxxps://<active C2>/doc/updx2401.jpg*eval*-1

In this case, the value #1 of the tuple is a URL that’s known to the backend for being associated with trapped hosts. BITS jobs from trapped hosts don’t always get a response. If they do, it’s a copy of the dropper PowerShell script. This could be to create an illusion that the framework is being updated as the URL in value #1 of the tuple suggests (hxxps://<active C2>/doc/updx2401.jpg).

However, the string that is included in all successive exfiltration BITS jobs from such host is “td”:”-1”,”tds”:”3”, eventually leading to all such hosts getting grouped under value “td”:”-1”. This forms the group of all trapped machines that are never delivered a payload. For the rest, so far, evidence suggests that it has been delivering the file infector Ramnit intermittently.

Durable protection against evolving malware

sLoad’s multi-stage attack chain, use of mutated intermediate scripts and BITS as an alternative protocol, and its polymorphic nature in general make it a piece malware that can be quite tricky to detect. Now, it has evolved into a new and polished version Starlord, which retains sLoads most basic capabilities but does away with spyware capabilities in favor of new and more powerful features, posing even higher risk.

Starslord can track and group affected machines based on the stage of infection, which can allow for unique infection paths. Interestingly, given the distinct reference to a fictional superhero, these groups can be thought of as universes in a multiverse. In fact, the malware uses a function called checkUniverse to determine if a host is an analyst machine.

Microsoft Threat Protection defends customers from sophisticated and continuously evolving threats like sLoad using multiple industry-leading security technologies that protect various attack surfaces. Through signal-sharing across multiple Microsoft services, Microsoft Threat Protection delivers comprehensive protection for identities, endpoints, data, apps, and infrastructure.

On endpoints, behavioral blocking and containment capabilities in Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection (Microsoft Defender ATP) ensure durable protection against evolving threats. Through cloud-based machine learning and data science informed by threat research, Microsoft Defender ATP can spot and stop malicious behaviors from threats, both old and new, in real-time.

 

 

Sujit Magar

Microsoft Defender ATP Research Team

The post sLoad launches version 2.0, Starslord appeared first on Microsoft Security.

Data science for cybersecurity: A probabilistic time series model for detecting RDP inbound brute force attacks

December 18th, 2019 No comments

Computers with Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) exposed to the internet are an attractive target for adversaries because they present a simple and effective way to gain access to a network. Brute forcing RDP, a secure network communications protocol that provides remote access over port 3389, does not require a high level of expertise or the use of exploits; attackers can utilize many off-the-shelf tools to scan the internet for potential victims and leverage similar such tools for conducting the brute force attack.

Attackers target RDP servers that use weak passwords and are without multi-factor authentication, virtual private networks (VPNs), and other security protections. Through RDP brute force, threat actor groups can gain access to target machines and conduct many follow-on activities like ransomware and coin mining operations.

In a brute force attack, adversaries attempt to sign in to an account by effectively using one or more trial-and-error methods. Many failed sign-ins occurring over very short time frequencies, typically minutes or even seconds, are usually associated with these attacks. A brute force attack might also involve adversaries attempting to access one or more accounts using valid usernames that were obtained from credential theft or using common usernames like “administrator”. The same holds for password combinations. In detecting RDP brute force attacks, we focus on the source IP address and username, as password data is not available.

In the Windows operating system, whenever an attempted sign-in fails for a local machine, Event Tracing for Windows (ETW) registers Event ID 4625 with the associated username. Meanwhile, source IP addresses connected to RDP can be accessed; this information is very useful in assessing if a machine is under brute force attack. Using this information in combination with Event ID 4624 for non-server Windows machines can shed light on which sign-in sessions were successfully created and can further help in detecting if a local machine has been compromised.

In this blog we’ll present a study and a detection logic that uses these signals. This data science-driven approach to detecting RDP brute force attacks has proven valuable in detecting human adversary activity through Microsoft Threat Experts, the managed threat hunting service in Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection. This work is an example of how the close collaboration between data scientists and threat hunters results in protection for customers against real-world threats.

Insights into brute force attacks

Observing a sudden, relatively large count of Event ID 4625 associated with RDP network connections might be rare, but it does not necessarily imply that a machine is under attack. For example, a script that performs the following actions would look suspicious looking at a time series of counts of failed sign-in but is most likely not malicious:

  • uses an expired password
  • retries sign-in attempts every N-minutes with different usernames
  • over a public IP address within a range owned by the enterprise

In contrast, behavior that includes the following is indicative of an attack:

  • extreme counts of failed sign-ins from many unknown usernames
  • never previously successfully authenticated
  • from multiple RDP connections
  • from new source IP addresses

Understanding the context of failed sign-ins and inbound connections is key to discriminating between true positive (TP) and false positive (FP) brute force attacks, especially if the goal is to automatically raise only high-precision alerts to the appropriate recipients, as we do in Microsoft Defender ATP.

We analyzed several months’ worth of data to mine insights into the types of RDP brute force attacks occurring across Microsoft Defender ATP customers. Out of about 45,000 machines that had both RDP public IP connections and at least 1 network failed sign-in, we discovered that, on average, several hundred machines per day had high probability of undergoing one or more RDP brute force attack attempts. Of the subpopulation of machines with detected brute force attacks, the attacks lasted 2-3 days on average, with about 90% of cases lasting for 1 week or less, and less than 5% lasting for 2 weeks or more.

Figure 1: Empirical distribution in number of days per machine where we observed 1 or more brute force attacks

As discussed in numerous other studies [1], large counts of failed sign-ins are often associated with brute force attacks. Looking at the count of daily failed sign-ins, 90% of cases exceeded 10 attempts, with a median larger than 60. In addition, these unusual daily counts had high positive correlation with extreme counts in shorter time windows (see Figure 2). In fact, the number of extreme failed sign-ins per day typically occurred under 2 hours, with about 40% failing in under 30 minutes.

Figure 2: Count of daily and maximum hourly network failed sign-ins for a local machine under brute force attack

While a detection logic based on thresholding the count of failed sign-ins during daily or finer grain time window can detect many brute force attacks, this will likely produce too many false positives. Worse, relying on just this will yield false negatives, missing successful enterprise compromises: our analysis revealed several instances where brute force attacks generated less than 5-10 failed attempts at a daily granularity but often persisted for many days, thereby avoiding extreme counts at any point in time. For such a brute force attack, thresholding the cumulative number of failed sign-ins across time could be more useful, as depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Daily and cumulative failed network sign-in

Looking at counts of network failed sign-ins provides a useful but incomplete picture of RDP brute force attacks. This can be further augmented with additional information on the failed sign-in, such as the failure reason, time of day, and day of week, as well as the username itself. An especially strong signal is the source IP of the inbound RDP connection. Knowing if the external IP has a high reputation of abuse, as can be looked up on sites like https://www.abuseipdb.com/, can directly confirm if an IP is a part of an active brute force.

Unfortunately, not all IP addresses have a history of abuse; in addition, it can be expensive to retrieve information about many external IP addresses on demand. Maintaining a list of suspicious IPs is an option, but relying on this can result in false negatives as, inevitably, new IPs continually occur, particularly with the adoption of cloud computing and ease of spinning up virtual machines. A generic signal that can augment failed sign-in and user information is counting distinct RDP connections from external IP addresses. Again, extreme values occurring at a given time or cumulated over time can be an indicator of attack.

Figure 4 shows histograms (i.e., counts put into discrete bins) of daily counts of RDP public connections per machine that occurred for an example enterprise with known brute force attacks. It’s evident that normal machines have a lower probability of larger counts compared to machines attacked.

Figure 4: Histograms of daily count of RDP inbound across machines for an example enterprise

Given that some enterprises have machines under brute force attack daily, the priority may be to focus on machines that have been compromised, defined by a first successful sign-in following failed attempts from suspicious source IP addresses or unusual usernames. In Windows logs, Event ID 4624 can be leveraged to measure successful sign-in events for local machine in combination with failed sign-ins (Event ID 4625).

Out of the hundreds of machines with RDP brute force attacks detected in our analysis, we found that about .08% were compromised. Furthermore, across all enterprises analyzed over several months, on average about 1 machine was detected with high probability of being compromised resulting from an RDP brute force attack every 3-4 days. Figure 5 shows a bubble chart of the average abuse score of external IPs associated with RDP brute force attacks that successfully compromised machines. The size of the bubbles is determined by the count of distinct machines across the enterprises analyzed having a network connection from each IP. While there is diversity in the origin of the source IPs, Netherlands, Russia, and the United Kingdom have a larger concentration of inbound RDP connections from high-abuse IP.

Figure 5: Bubble chart of IP abuse score versus counts of machine with inbound RDP

A key takeaway from our analysis is that successful brute force attempts are not uncommon; therefore, it’s critical to monitor at least the suspicious connections and unusual failed sign-ins that result in authenticated sign-in events. In the following sections we describe a methodology to do this. This methodology was leveraged by Microsoft Threat Experts to augment threat hunting and resulted in new targeted attack notifications.

Combining many relevant signals

As discussed earlier (with the example of scripts connecting via RDP using outdated passwords yielding failed sign-ins), simply relying on thresholding failed attempts per machine for detecting brute force attacks can be noisy and may result in many false positives. A better strategy is to utilize many contextually relevant signals, such as:

  • the timing, type, and count of failed sign-in
  • username history
  • type and frequency of network connections
  • first-time username from a new source machine with a successful sign-in

This can be even further extended to include indicators of attack associated with brute force, such as port scanning.

Combining multiple signals along the attack chain has been proposed and shown promising results [2]. We considered the following signals in detecting RDP inbound brute force attacks per machine:

  • hour of day and day of week of failed sign-in and RDP connections
  • timing of successful sign-in following failed attempts
  • Event ID 4625 login type (filtered to network and remote interactive)
  • Event ID 4625 failure reason (filtered to %%2308, %%2312, %%2313)
  • cumulative count of distinct username that failed to sign in without success
  • count (and cumulative count) of failed sign-ins
  • count (and cumulative count) of RDP inbound external IP
  • count of other machines having RDP inbound connections from one or more of the same IP

Unsupervised probabilistic time series anomaly detection

For many cybersecurity problems, including detecting brute force attacks, previously labeled data is not usually available. Thus, training a supervised learning model is not feasible. This is where unsupervised learning is helpful, enabling one to discover and quantify unknown behaviors when examples are too sparse. Given that several of the signals we consider for modeling RDP brute force attacks are inherently dependent on values observed over time (for example, daily counts of failed sign-ins and counts of inbound connections), time series models are particularly beneficial. Specifically, time series anomaly detection naturally provides a logical framework to quantify uncertainty in modeling temporal changes in data and produce probabilities that then can be ranked and thresholded to control a desirable false positive rate.

Time series anomaly detection captures the temporal dynamics of signals and accurately quantifies the probability of observing values at any point in time under normal operating conditions. More formally, if we introduce the notation Y(t) to denote the signals taking on values at time t, then we build a model to compute reliable estimates of the probability of Y(t) exceeding observed values given all known and relevant information, represented by P[y(t)], sometimes called an anomaly score. Given a false positive tolerance rate r (e.g., .1% or 1 out of 10,000 per time), for each time t, values y*(t) satisfying P[y*(t)] < r would be detected as anomalous. Assuming the right signals reflecting the relevant behaviors of the type of attacks are chosen, then the idea is simple: the lowest anomaly scores occurring per time will be likely associated with the highest likelihood of real threats.

For example, looking back at Figure 2, the time series of daily count of failed sign-ins occurring on the brute force attack day 8/4/2019 had extreme values that would be associated with an empirical probability of about .03% out of all machine and days with at least 1 failed network sign-in for the enterprise.

As discussed earlier, applying anomaly detection to 1 or a few signals to detect real attacks can yield too many false positives. To mitigate this, we combined anomaly scores across eight signals we selected to model RDP brute force attack patterns. The details of our solution are included in the Appendix, but in summary, our methodology involves:

  • updating statistical discrete time series models sequentially for each signal, capturing time of day, day of week, and both point and cumulative effects
  • combining anomaly scores using an approach that yields accurate probability estimates, and
  • ranking the top N anomalies per day to control a desired number of false positives

Our approach to time series anomaly detection is computationally efficient, automatically learns how to update probabilities and adapt to changes in data.

As we describe in the next section, this approach has yielded successful attack detection at high precision.

Protecting customers from real-word RDP brute force attacks through Microsoft Threat Experts

The proposed time series anomaly detection model was deployed and utilized by Microsoft Threat Experts to detect RDP brute force attacks during threat hunting activities. A list that ranks machines across enterprises with the lowest anomaly scores (indicating the likelihood of observing a value at least as large under expected conditions in all signals considered) is updated and reviewed every day. See Table 1 for an example.

Table 1: Sample ranking of detected RDP inbound brute force attacks

For each machine with detection of a probable brute force attack, each instance is assigned TP, FP, or unknown. Each TP is then assigned priority based on the severity of the attack. For high-priority TP, a targeted attack notification is sent to the associated organization with details about the active brute force attack and recommendations for mitigating the threat; otherwise the machine is closely monitored until more information is available.

We also added an extra capability to our anomaly detection: automatically sending targeted attack notifications about RDP brute force attacks, in many cases before the attack succeeds or before the actor is able to conduct further malicious activities. Looking at the most recent sample of about two weeks of graded detections, the average precision per day (i.e., true positive rate) is approximately 93.7% at a conservative false positive rate of 1%.

In conclusion, based on our careful selection of signals found to be highly associated with RDP brute force attacks, we demonstrated that proper application of time series anomaly detection can be very accurate in identifying real threats. We have filed a patent application for this probabilistic time series model for detecting RDP inbound brute force attacks. In addition, we are working on integrating this capability into Microsoft Defender ATP’s endpoint and detection response capabilities so that the detection logic can raise alerts on RDP brute force attacks in real-time.

Monitoring suspicious activity in failed sign-in and network connections should be taken seriously—a real-time anomaly detection capable of self-updating with the changing dynamics in a network can indeed provide a sustainable solution. While Microsoft Defender ATP already has many anomaly detection capabilities integrated into its EDR capabilities, we will continue to enhance these detections to cover more security scenarios. Through data science, we will continue to combine robust statistical and machine learning approaches with threat expertise and intelligence to deliver industry-leading protection to our customers.

 

 

Cole Sodja, Justin Carroll, Joshua Neil
Microsoft Defender ATP Research Team

 

 

Appendix 1: Models formulation

We utilize hierarchical zero-adjusted negative binomial dynamic models to capture the characteristics of the highly discrete count time series. Specifically, as shown in Figure 2, it’s expected that most of the time there won’t be failed sign-ins for valid credentials on a local machine; hence, there are excess zeros that would not be explained by standard probability distributions such as the negative binomial. In addition, the variance of non-zero counts is often much larger than the mean, where for example, valid scripts connecting via RDP can generate counts in the 20s or more over several minutes because of an outdated password. Moreover, given a combination of multiple users or scripts connecting to shared machines at the same time, this can generate more extreme counts at higher quantiles resulting in heavier tails, as seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Daily count of network failed sign-in for a machine with no brute force attack

Parametric discrete location/scale distributions do not generate well-calibrated p-values for rare time series, as seen in Figure 6, and thus if used to detect anomalies can result in too many FPs when looking across many machines at high time frequencies. To overcome this challenge dealing with the sparse time series of counts of failed sign-in and RDP inbound public connections we specify a mixture model, where, based on our analysis, a zero-inflated two-component negative binomial distribution was adequate.

Our formulation is based on thresholding values that determine when to transition to a distribution with larger location and/or scale as given in Equation 1. Hierarchical priors are given from empirical estimates of the sample moments across machines using about 1 month of data.

Equation 1: Zero-adjusted negative binomial threshold model

Negative binomial distribution (NB):

To our knowledge, this formulation does not yield a conjugate prior, and so directly computing probabilities from the posterior predicted density is not feasible. Instead, anomaly scores are generated based on drawing samples from all distributions and then computing the empirical right-tail p-value.

Updating parameters is done based on applying exponential smoothing. To avoid outliers skewing estimates, such as machines under brute force or other attacks, trimming is applied to sample from the distribution at a specified false positive rate, which was set to .1% for our study. Algorithm 1 outlines the logic.

The smoothing parameters were learned based on maximum likelihood estimation and then fixed during each new sequential update. To induce further uncertainty, bootstrapping across machines is done to produce a histogram of smoothing weights, and samples are drawn in accordance to their frequency. We found that weights concentrated away from 0 vary between .06% and 8% for over 90% of machines, thus leading to slow changes in the parameters. An extension using adaptive forgetting factors will be considered in future work to automatically learn how to correct smoothing in real time.

Algorithm 1: Updating model parameters real-time

Appendix 2: Fisher Combination

For a given device, for each signal that exists a score is computed defined as a p-value, where lower values are associated with higher likelihood of being an anomaly. Then the p-values are combined to yield a joint score across all signals based on using the Fisher p-value combination method as follows:

The use of Fisher’s test applied to anomaly scores produces a scalable solution that yields interpretable probabilities that thus can be controlled to achieve a desired false positive rate. This has even been applied in a cybersecurity context. [3]

 

 

[1] Najafabadi et al, Machine Learning for Detecting Brute Force Attacks at the Network Level, 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering
[2] Sexton et al, Attack chain detection, Statistical Analysis and Data Mining, 2015
[3] Heard, Combining Weak Statistical Evidence in Cyber Security, Intelligent Data Analysis XIV, 2015

The post Data science for cybersecurity: A probabilistic time series model for detecting RDP inbound brute force attacks appeared first on Microsoft Security.

Multi-stage downloader Trojan sLoad abuses BITS almost exclusively for malicious activities

December 12th, 2019 No comments

Many of today’s threats evolve to incorporate as many living-off-the-land techniques as possible into the attack chain. The PowerShell-based downloader Trojan known as sLoad, however, puts all its bets on BITS.

Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) is a component of the Windows operating system that provides an ability to transfer files in an asynchronous and throttled fashion using idle bandwidth. Abusing BITS, which provides the ability to create self-contained jobs that can be prioritized and queued up and that can launch other programs, has become a prevalent attack technique. Recent sophisticated malware campaigns like Astaroth have found success in the use of BITS for downloading payloads or additional components, especially in systems where the firewall is not configured to block malicious traffic from BITS jobs.

sLoad, detected by Windows Defender Antivirus as TrojanDownloader:PowerShell/sLoad, is used by adversaries for exfiltrating system information and delivering additional payloads in targeted attacks. It has been around for a few years and has not stopped evolving. What hasn’t changed, though, is its use of BITS for all of its exfiltration activities, as well as command-and-control (C2) communications from handshake to downloading additional payloads.

Once sLoad has infiltrated a machine, it can allow attackers to do further, potentially more damaging actions. Using exfiltrated information, attackers can identify what security solutions are running and test payloads before they are sneaked into the compromised system or, worse, high-priced targets. sLoad uses scheduled tasks, which runs the malware every three minutes, opening the window of opportunity for further compromise—hence raising the risk for the affected machine—every time it runs. We have already seen the malware attempt to deliver several other, potentially more dangerous Trojans to compromised machines.

While several malware campaigns have leveraged BITS, sLoad’s almost exclusive use of the service is notable. sLoad uses BITS as an alternative protocol to perform data exfiltration and most of its other malicious activities, enabling the malware to evade defenders and protections that may not be inspecting this unconventional protocol. Cloud-based machine learning-driven behavioral blocking and containment capabilities in Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection detect and block sLoad’s activities as Behavior:Win32/sLoad.A.

In this blog we’ll share our analysis of the multiple ways in which sLoad is abusing BITS and share how Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection defeats these advanced malware techniques.

Stealthy installation via multiple cascaded scripts

sLoad is known to infect machines using spear-phishing emails and a common but effective detection evasion technique: the cascaded scripts. One script drops or downloads one or more scripts, passes control to one of these scripts, and repeats the process multiple times until the final component is installed.

Over time, we’ve seen some variations of this technique. One sLoad campaign used the link target field of a LNK file to run PowerShell commands that extracts and runs the first-stage PowerShell code, which is appended to the end of the LNK file or, in one instance, the end of the ZIP file that originally contained the LNK file. In another campaign, the first-stage PowerShell code itself uses a download BITS job to download either the sLoad script and the C2 URL file or the sLoad dropper PowerShell script that embeds the encrypted sLoad script and C2 URL file within itself.

In the most recent attacks, for the first stage, sLoad shifted from using PowerShell script to VBScript. The randomly named VBScript file is simply a proxy that builds and then drops and runs a PowerShell script, always named rr.ps1. This is none other than the same sLoad PowerShell dropper mentioned earlier that embeds the encrypted sLoad script and C2 URL file within itself.

In most variations of the installation, the sLoad dropper script is the last intermediate stage that performs the following actions, and eventually decrypts and runs the final sLoad script:

  1. Creates an installation folder in the %APPDATA% folder named after the first 6 characters of the Win32 Product UUID. 
  2. Drops an infection marker file named _in, and during the successive executions, uses the LastWriteTime on this file to check whether the malware is installed within last 30 mins, in which case, it terminates. 
  3. Drops the encrypted sLoad script and the C2 URL file as config.ini and web.ini, respectively. 
  4. Builds and drops two more randomly named scripts: one VBScript and one PowerShell script. 
  5. Uses schtasks.exe to create a scheduled task named AppRunLog to run the randomly named VBScript from the previous step with decryption key supplied as a command line parameter; deletes the previously created related tasks (if found) before creating this one. The scheduled task is configured to start at 7:00 AM and run every 3 mins. 

The dropped VBScript that runs under the scheduled task is yet another proxy that simply runs the dropped PowerShell script with the same command line parameter (the decryption key). The PowerShell script decrypts the contents of the previously dropped config.ini in the memory into another piece of PowerShell code, which it then runs. This is the final component, the script detected as TrojanDownloader:PowerShell/sLoad, that uses BITS to perform every important malicious activity.

BITS abuse

The sLoad PowerShell script (the final component) then abuses BITS to carry out all of the following activities:

Finding an active C2 server

The malware decrypts the contents of previously dropped web.ini into a set of 2 URLs and creates a BITS download jobs to test the connection to these URLs. It then saves the URL that responds in the form of a file that contains a message “sok”, being downloaded as part of created BITS job. This ensures that the handshake is complete.

If none responds, the script appends the number “1” to the domain names in both URLs, saves the encrypted data back to the web.ini file, and exits from the script. As a result, the next time the scheduled job runs, the script uses the modified web.ini to obtain the modified URLs to attempt connecting to an active C2. With each unsuccessful attempt of connecting with C2s, the number appended to the domain names is increased by increments of 1 until it reaches 50, at which time it resets to 1. This technique offers a bit of a cushion and ensures continued contact between a compromised machine and a C2, in case the primary C2 is blocked.

This prevents the malware infrastructure from losing a compromised host if the primary C2 is blocked. It’s also interesting to see how the URLs used to reach C2 are structured to appear related to CAPTCHA verification, an attempt to escape watchful eyes.

Fetching a new list of C2s

For continued exfiltration of information, it’s important to maintain contact with an active C2. As the malicious domains cannot stay up running for a long time, the malware packs a functionality to refresh the list of C2 every time the scheduled task runs. Using a BITS download job, the malware downloads a new copy of web.ini from the active C2 to provisions a new set of C2s for future use.

Exfiltrating system information

Once an active C2 is identified, the malware starts collecting system information by performing the following:

  • saves the output of “net view” command
  • enumerates network drives and saves the provider names and device ids
  • produces the list of all running processes
  • obtains the OS caption
  • looks for Outlook folder, as well as Independent Computing Architecture (ICA) files, which are used by Citrix application servers to store configuration information

It then creates a BITS download job with the RemoteURL built using the URL for active C2 and the system information collected up this point.

Crafting URLs infused with stolen info is not a novel attacker technique. In addition, creating a BITS job with an extremely large RemoteURL parameter that includes non-encrypted system information stands out and is relatively easy to detect. However, this malware’s use of a download job instead of an upload job is a clever move to achieve stealth.

Deploying additional payloads

Because the malware exfiltrates system information using a BITS download job, it gets an opportunity to receive a response in the form of a file downloaded to the machine. It uses this opportunity to obtain additional payloads from the C2.

It sleeps and waits for the file to be downloaded. If the downloaded file instructs to download and invoke additional PowerShell codes, the supplied URL is used for the task. If not, then the URL is assumed to be pointing to an encoded PE image payload. The malware creates another BITS download job to download this payload, creates a copy of this newly downloaded encoded file, and uses another Windows utility, certutil.exe, to decode it into a portable executable (PE) file with .exe extension. Finally, it uses PowerShell.exe to run the decoded PE payload. One more BITS download job is created to download additional files.

Spying

The malware comes built with one of the most notorious spyware features: uploading screenshots. At several stages during the installation as well as when running additional payloads, the malware takes several screenshots at short intervals. It then uses a BITS upload job to send the stolen screenshots to the active C2. This is the only time that it uses an upload job, and these are the only files it uploads to the C2. Once uploaded, the screenshots are deleted from the machine.

Conclusion: Multiple layers of protection against multi-stage living-off-the-land threats

sLoad is just one example of the increasingly more prevalent threats that can perform most of their malicious activities by simply living off the land. In this case, it’s a dangerous threat that’s equipped with notorious spyware capabilities, infiltrative payload delivery, and data exfiltration capabilities. sLoad’s behavior can be classified as a Type III fileless technique: while it drops some malware files during installation, its use of only BITS jobs to perform most of its harmful behaviors and scheduled tasks for persistence achieves an almost fileless presence on compromised machines.

To defeat multi-stage, stealthy, and persistent threats like sLoad, Microsoft Defender ATP’s antivirus component uses multiple next-generation protection engines on the client and in the cloud. While most threats are identified and stopped by many of these engines, behavioral blocking and containment capabilities detects malicious behaviors and blocks threats after they have started running:

These detections are also surfaced in Microsoft Defender Security Center. Security operations teams can then use Microsoft Defender ATP’s other capabilities like endpoint detection and response (EDR), automated investigation and response, Threat and Vulnerability Management, and Microsoft Threat Experts to investigate and respond to attacks. This reflects the defense-in-depth strategy that is central to the unified endpoint protection provided by Microsoft Defender ATP.

As part of Microsoft Threat Protection, Microsoft Defender ATP shares security signals about this threat to other security services, which likewise inform and enrich endpoint protection. For example, Office 365 ATP’s intelligence on the emails that carry sLoad is shared to and used by Microsoft Defender ATP to build even stronger defenses at the source of infection. Real-time signal-sharing across Microsoft’s security services gives Microsoft Threat Protection unparalleled visibility across attack vectors and the unique ability to provide comprehensive protection against identities, endpoints, data, cloud apps, and infrastructure.

 

Sujit Magar
Microsoft Defender ATP Research Team

 

 


Talk to us

Questions, concerns, or insights on this story? Join discussions at the Microsoft Defender ATP community.

Read all Microsoft security intelligence blog posts.

Follow us on Twitter @MsftSecIntel.

 

The post Multi-stage downloader Trojan sLoad abuses BITS almost exclusively for malicious activities appeared first on Microsoft Security.

The quiet evolution of phishing

December 11th, 2019 No comments

The battle against phishing is a silent one: every day, Office 365 Advanced Threat Protection detects millions of distinct malicious URLs and email attachments. Every year, billions of phishing emails don’t ever reach mailboxes—real-world attacks foiled in real-time. Heuristics, detonation, and machine learning, enriched by signals from Microsoft Threat Protection services, provide dynamic, robust protection against email threats.

Phishers have been quietly retaliating, evolving their techniques to try and evade these protections. In 2019, we saw phishing attacks reach new levels of creativity and sophistication. Notably, these techniques involve the abuse of legitimate cloud services like those offered by Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and others. At Microsoft, we have aggressive processes to identify and take down nefarious uses of our services without affecting legitimate applications.

In this blog we’ll share three of the most notable attack techniques we spotted this year. We uncovered these attacks while studying Office 365 ATP signals, which we use to track and deeply understand attacker activity and build durable defenses against evolving and increasingly sophisticated email threats.

Hijacked search results lead to phishing

Over the years, phishers have become better at evading detection by hiding malicious artifacts behind benign ones. This tactic manifests in, among many others, the use of URLs that point to legitimate but compromised websites or multiple harmless-looking redirectors that eventually lead to phishing.

One clever phishing campaign we saw in 2019 used links to Google search results that were poisoned so that they pointed to an attacker-controlled page, which eventually redirected to a phishing page. A traffic generator ensured that the redirector page was the top result for certain keywords.

Figure 1. Phishing attack that used poisoned search results

Using this technique, phishers were able to send phishing emails that contained only legitimate URLs (i.e., link to search results), and a trusted domain at that, for example:

  • hxxps://www[.]google[.]ru/#btnI&q=%3Ca%3EhOJoXatrCPy%3C/a%3E
  • hxxps://www[.]google[.]ru/#btnI&q=%3Ca%3EyEg5xg1736iIgQVF%3C/a%3E

The campaign was made even stealthier by its use of location-specific search results. When accessed by users in Europe, the phishing URL led to the redirector website c77684gq[.]beget[.]tech, and eventually to the phishing page. Outside Europe, the same URL returned no search results.

For this to work, attackers had to make sure that their website, c77684gq[.]beget[.]tech, was the top search result for the keyword “hOJoXatrCPy” when queried from certain regions. The website’s HTML code is composed of a redirector script and a series of anchor elements:

Figure 2. Redirector code

These anchor elements were designed to be crawled by search engines so that the page is indexed and returned as result for the search keywords that attackers wanted to use for their campaign.

Figure 3. Anchor tags containing search keywords

The attackers then set up a traffic generator to poison search results. Because the phishing URL used the open redirector functionality, it redirected to the top search result, hence the redirector page.

404 Not Found pages customized to be phishing sites

The other way that phishers evade detection is to use multiple URLs and sometimes even multiple domains for their campaigns. They use techniques like subdomain generation algorithms to try and always get ahead of solutions, which, without the right dynamic technologies, will be forced continually catch up as phishers generate more and more domains and URLs.

This year, attackers have found another shrewd way to serve phishing: custom 404 pages. We uncovered a phishing campaign targeting Microsoft that used 404 pages crafted as phishing pages, which gave phishers virtually unlimited phishing URLs.

Figure 4. Phishing attack that uses specially crafted 404 Not Found error page

The custom 404 page was designed to look like the legitimate Microsoft account sign-in page.

Figure 5. 404 page designed as phishing page

Because the malformed 404 page is served to any non-existent URL in an attacker-controlled domain, the phishers could use random URLs for their campaigns. For example, we saw these two URLs used in phishing campaigns; the attackers added a single character to the second one to generate a new URL but serve the same phishing page:

  • hxxps://skype-online8024[.]web[.]app/8cc1083b0ffdf1e5b9594c045c825b02d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e#ZG1jY2FubkBtb3Jicm9zLmNvbQ
  • hxxps://skype-online8024[.]web[.]app/8cc1083b0ffdf1e5b9594c045c825b02d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e#ZG1jY2FubkBtb3Jicm9zLmNvbQs

We also found that the attackers randomized domains, exponentially increasing the number of phishing URLs:

  • outlookloffice365usertcph4l3q[.]web[.]app
  • outlookloffice365userdqz75j6h[.]web[.]app
  • outlookloffice365usery6ykxo07[.]web[.]app

All of these non-existent URLs returned the 404 error page, i.e., the phishing page:

Figure 6. When phishing URL is accessed, server responds with HTTP 404 error message, which is a phishing page

Man-in-the-middle component for dynamic phishing attack

Phishers have also been getting better at impersonation: the more legitimate the phishing emails looked, the better their chances at tricking recipients. Countless brands both big and small have been targets of spoofing by phishers.

One particular phishing campaign in 2019 took impersonation to the next level. Instead of attackers copying elements from the spoofed legitimate website, a man-in-the-middle component captured company-specific information like logos, banners, text, and background images from Microsoft’s rendering site.

Phishers sent out emails with URLs pointing to an attacker-controlled server, which served as the man-in-the-middle component and simulated Microsoft sign-in pages. The server identified certain specific information based on the recipient’s email address, including the target company, and then gathered the information specific to that company. The result was the exact same experience as the legitimate sign-page, which could significantly reduce suspicion.

Figure 7. Phishing attack that abuses Microsoft’s rendering site

Using the same URL, the phishing site was rendered differently for different targeted users. To generate legitimate-looking phishing sites, the server used the following code to retrieve the banner used by the target’s victim company as identified by the domain information in the email address; the response is the URL for the company banner:

Figure 8. Code snippet for requesting the banner

The server also retrieved the text used in the company’s sign-in page; the response is the actual text specific to the target victim’s company:

Figure 9. Code snippet for requesting the company-specific text

To complete the legitimate-looking phishing page, the server requested the background image using the code below; the response is the URL to the image:

Figure 10. Codes snippets for requesting background image

Office 365 ATP: Durable and dynamic defense for evolving email threats

The phishing techniques that we discussed in this blog are vastly different from each, but they are all clever attempts to achieve something that’s very important for phishers and other cybercrooks: stealth. The longer phishers can quietly hide from security solutions, the more chances they have to invade inboxes and trick people into divulging sensitive information.

To hunt down phishing and other threats that don’t want to be found, Office 365 ATP uses advanced security technologies that expose sophisticated techniques. Our URL detonation technology can follow the attack chain so it can detect threats even if they hide behind legitimate services and multiple layers of redirectors.

This rich visibility into email threats allows Office 365 ATP to continuously inform and improve its heuristic and machine learning protections so that new and emerging campaigns are blocked in real-time—silently protecting customers from attacks even when they don’t know it. The insights from Office 365 ATP also allow our security experts to track emerging techniques and other attacker activities like the ones we discussed in this blog, allowing us to ensure that our protections are effective not just for the campaigns that we see today but those that might emerge in the future.

In addition, with the new campaign views in Office 365 ATP currently in preview, enterprises can get a broad picture of email campaigns observed in their network, with details like when the campaign started, the sending pattern and timeline, the list of IP addresses and senders used in the attack, which messages were blocked or otherwise, and other important information.

As an important component of Microsoft Threat Protection, Office 365 ATP provides critical security signals about threat that arrive via email—a common entry point for cyberattacks—to the rest of Microsoft’s security technologies, helping provide crucial protection at the early stages of attacks. Through signal-sharing and remediation orchestration across security solutions, Microsoft Threat Protection provides comprehensive and integrated protection for identities, endpoints, user data, apps, and infrastructure.

 

Patrick Estavillo
Office 365 ATP Research Team

 

 

 


Read all Microsoft security intelligence blog posts.

Follow us on Twitter @MsftSecIntel.

The post The quiet evolution of phishing appeared first on Microsoft Security.

Gartner Names Microsoft a Leader in the 2019 Enterprise Information Archiving (EIA) Magic Quadrant

November 26th, 2019 No comments

We often hear from customers about the explosion of data, and the challenge this presents for organizations in remaining compliant and protecting their information. We’ve invested in capabilities across the landscape of information protection and information governance, inclusive of archiving, retention, eDiscovery and communications supervision. In Gartner’s annual Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Information Archiving (EIA), Microsoft was named a Leader again in 2019.

According to Gartner, “Leaders have the highest combined measures of Ability to Execute and Completeness of Vision. They may have the most comprehensive and scalable products. In terms of vision, they are perceived to be thought leaders, with well-articulated plans for ease of use, product breadth and how to address scalability.” We believe this recognition represents our ability to provide best-in-class protection and deliver on innovations that keep pace with today’s compliance needs.

This recognition comes at a great point in our product journey. We are continuing to invest in solutions that are integrated into Office 365 and address information protection and information governance needs of customers. Earlier this month, at our Ignite 2019 conference, we announced updates to our compliance portfolio including new data connectors, machine learning powered governance, retention, discovery and supervision – and innovative capabilities such as threading Microsoft Teams or Yammer messages into conversations, allowing you to efficiently review and export complete dialogues with context, not just individual messages. In customer conversations, many of them say these are the types of advancements that are helping them be more efficient with their compliance requirements, without impacting end-user productivity.

Learn more

Read the complimentary report for the analysis behind Microsoft’s position as a Leader.

For more information about our Information Archiving solution, visit our website and stay up to date with our blog.

Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Information Archiving, Julian Tirsu, Michael Hoeck, 20 November 2019.

*This graphic was published by Gartner, Inc. as part of a larger research document and should be evaluated in the context of the entire document. The Gartner document is available upon request from Microsoft.

Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product, or service depicted in its research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

GARTNER is a registered trademark and service mark of Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and internationally, and is used herein with permission. All rights reserved.

The post Gartner Names Microsoft a Leader in the 2019 Enterprise Information Archiving (EIA) Magic Quadrant appeared first on Microsoft Security.

Categories: cybersecurity Tags:

Insights from one year of tracking a polymorphic threat

November 26th, 2019 No comments

A little over a year ago, in October 2018, our polymorphic outbreak monitoring system detected a large surge in reports, indicating that a large-scale campaign was unfolding. We observed as the new threat attempted to deploy files that changed every 20-30 minutes on thousands of devices. We gave the threat the name “Dexphot,” based on certain characteristics of the malware code.

The Dexphot attack used a variety of sophisticated methods to evade security solutions. Layers of obfuscation, encryption, and the use of randomized file names hid the installation process. Dexphot then used fileless techniques to run malicious code directly in memory, leaving only a few traces that can be used for forensics. It hijacked legitimate system processes to disguise malicious activity. If not stopped, Dexphot ultimately ran a cryptocurrency miner on the device, with monitoring services and scheduled tasks triggering re-infection when defenders attempt to remove the malware.

In the months that followed, we closely tracked the threat and witnessed the attackers upgrade the malware, target new processes, and work around defensive measures:

Timeline of evolution of Dexphot malware

While Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection’s pre-execution detection engines blocked Dexphot in most cases, behavior-based machine learning models provided protection for cases where the threat slipped through. Given the threat’s persistence mechanisms, polymorphism, and use of fileless techniques, behavior-based detection was a critical component of the comprehensive protection against this malware and other threats that exhibit similar malicious behaviors.

Microsoft Defender ATP data shows the effectiveness of behavioral blocking and containment capabilities in stopping the Dexphot campaign. Over time, Dexphot-related malicious behavior reports dropped to a low hum, as the threat lost steam.

Number of machines that encountered Dexphot over time

Our close monitoring of Dexphot helped us ensure that our customers were protected from the evolving threat. More importantly, one year’s worth of intelligence helped us gain insight not only into the goals and motivations of Dexphot’s authors, but of cybercriminals in general.

Complex attack chain

The early stages of a Dexphot infection involves numerous files and processes. During the execution stage, Dexphot writes five key files to disk:

  1. An installer with two URLs
  2. An MSI package file downloaded from one of the URLs
  3. A password-protected ZIP archive
  4. A loader DLL, which is extracted from the archive
  5. An encrypted data file that holds three additional executables that are loaded into system processes via process hollowing

Except for the installer, the other processes that run during execution are legitimate system processes. This can make detection and remediation more difficult. These legitimate system processes include msiexec.exe (for installing MSI packages), unzip.exe (for extracting files from the password-protected ZIP archive), rundll32.exe (for loading the loader DLL), schtasks.exe (for scheduled tasks), powershell.exe (for forced updates). In later stages, Dexphot targets a few other system processes for process hollowing: svchost.exe, tracert.exe, and setup.exe.

Dexphot attack chain

Multiple layers of security evasion

Based on Microsoft Defender ATP signals, SoftwareBundler:Win32/ICLoader and its variants are primarily used to drop and run the Dexphot installer. The installer uses two URLs to download malicious payloads. These are the same two URLs that Dexphot use later to establish persistence, update the malware, and re-infect the device.

The installer downloads an MSI package from one of the two URLs, and then launches msiexec.exe to perform a silent install. This is the first of several instances of Dexphot employing living-off-the-land techniques, the use of legitimate system processes for nefarious purposes.

Dexphot’s package often contains an obfuscated batch script. If the package contains this file, the script is the first thing that msiexec.exe runs when it begins the installation process. The said obfuscated script is designed to check for antivirus products. Dexphot halts the infection process immediately if an antivirus product is found running.

When we first began our research, the batch script only checked for antivirus products from Avast and AVG. Later, Windows Defender Antivirus was added to the checklist.

If the process is not halted, Dexphot decompresses the password-protected ZIP archive from the MSI package. The password to this archive is within the MSI package. Along with the password, the malware’s authors also include a clean version of unzip.exe so that they don’t have to rely on the target system having a ZIP utility. The unzip.exe file in the package is usually named various things, such as z.exe or ex.exe, to avoid scrutiny.

The ZIP archive usually contains three files: the loader DLL, an encrypted data file (usually named bin.dat), and, often, one clean unrelated DLL, which is likely included to mislead detection.

Dexphot usually extracts the decompressed files to the target system’s Favorites folder. The files are given new, random names, which are generated by concatenating words and numbers based on the time of execution (for example, C:\Users\<user>\Favorites\\Res.Center.ponse\<numbers>). The commands to generate the new names are also obfuscated, for example:

Msiexec.exe next calls rundll32.exe, specifying loader DLL (urlmon.7z in the example above) in order to decrypt the data file. The decryption process involves ADD and XOR operations, using a key hardcoded in the binary.

The decrypted data contains three executables. Unlike the files described earlier, these executables are never written to the filesystem. Instead, they exist only in memory, and Dexphot runs them by loading them into other system processes via process hollowing.

Stealthy execution through fileless techniques

Process hollowing is a technique that can hide malware within a legitimate system process. It replaces the contents of the legitimate process with malicious code. Detecting malicious code hidden using this method is not trivial, so process hollowing has become a prevalent technique used by malware today.

This method has the additional benefit of being fileless: the code can be run without actually being saved on the file system. Not only is it harder to detect the malicious code while it’s running, it’s harder to find useful forensics after the process has stopped.

To initiate process hollowing, the loader DLL targets two legitimate system processes, for example svchost.exe or nslookup.exe, and spawns them in a suspended state. The loader DLL replaces the contents of these processes with the first and second decrypted executables. These executables are monitoring services for maintaining Dexphot’s components. The now-malicious processes are released from suspension and run.

Next, the loader DLL targets the setup.exe file in SysWoW64. It removes setup.exe’s contents and replaces them with the third decrypted executable, a cryptocurrency miner. Although Dexphot always uses a cryptocurrency miner of some kind, it’s not always the same miner. It used different programs like XMRig and JCE Miner over the course of our research.

Persistence through regularly scheduled malware updates

The two monitoring services simultaneously check the status of all three malicious processes. Having dual monitoring services provides redundancy in case one of the monitoring processes is halted. If any of the processes are terminated, the monitors immediately identify the situation, terminate all remaining malicious processes, and re-infect the device. This forced update/re-infection process is started by a PowerShell command similar to the one below:

The monitoring components also detect freshly launched cmd.exe processes and terminate them promptly. As a final fail-safe, Dexphot uses schtasks.exe to create scheduled tasks, with the command below.

This persistence technique is interesting, because it employs two distinct MITRE ATT&CK techniques: Scheduled Task and Signed Binary Proxy Execution.

The scheduled tasks call msiexec.exe as a proxy to run the malicious code, much like how msiexec.exe was used during installation. Using msiexec.exe, a legitimate system process, can make it harder to trace the source of malicious activity.

Furthermore, the tasks allow Dexphot to conveniently update the payload from the web every time the tasks run. They automatically update all of Dexphot’s components, both upon system reboot as well as every 90 or 110 minutes while the system is running.

Dexphot also generates the names for the tasks at runtime, which means a simple block list of hardcoded task names will not be effective in preventing them from running. The names are usually in a GUID format, although after we released our first round of Dexphot-blocking protections, the threat authors began to use random strings.

The threat authors have one more evasion technique for these scheduled tasks: some Dexphot variants copy msiexec.exe to an arbitrary location and give it a random name, such as %AppData%\<random>.exe. This makes the system process running malicious code a literal moving target.

Polymorphism

Dexphot exhibits multiple layers of polymorphism across the binaries it distributes. For example, the MSI package used in the campaign contains different files, as shown in the table below. The MSI packages generally include a clean version of unzip.exe, a password-protected ZIP file, and a batch file that checks for currently installed antivirus products. However, the batch file is not always present, and the names of the ZIP files and Loader DLLs, as well as the password for extracting the ZIP file, all change from one package to the next.

In addition, the contents of each Loader DLL differs from package to package, as does the encrypted data included in the ZIP file. This leads to the generation of a different ZIP archive and, in turn, a unique MSI package, each time the attacker bundles the files together. Because of these carefully designed layers of polymorphism, a traditional file-based detection approach wouldn’t be effective against Dexphot.

 

MSI package ID MSI package contents Password for ZIP file Contents of encrypted ZIP
Unzip.exe name ZIP file name Batch file name Loader DLL file name Encrypted data name
MSI-1 ex.exe webUI.r0_ f.bat kjfhwehjkf IECache.dll bin.dat
MSI-2 ex.exe analog.tv f.bat ZvDagW kernel32.bin bin.dat
MSI-3 z.exe yandex.zip f.bat jeremy SetupUi.dll bin.dat
MSI-4 unzip.exe ERDNT.LOC.zip iso100 ERDNT.LOC data.bin
MSI-5 pck.exe mse.zip kika _steam.dll bin.dat
MSI-6 z.exe msi.zip arima ic64.dll bin.dat
MSI-7 z.exe mse.zip f.bat kika _steam.dll bin.dat
MSI-8 z.exe mse.zip kika _steam.dll bin.dat
MSI-9 z.exe yandex.zip f.bat jeremy SetupUi.dll bin.dat
MSI-10 hf.exe update.dat f.bat namr x32Frame.dll data.bin
MSI-11 z.exe yandex.zip f.bat jeremy SetupUi.dll bin.dat
MSI-12 unzip.exe PkgMgr.iso.zip pack PkgMgr.iso data.bin
MSI-13 ex.exe analog.tv f.bat kjfhwefkjwehjkf urlmon.7z bin.dat
MSI-14 ex.exe icon.ico f.bat ZDADW default.ocx bin.dat
MSI-15 hf.exe update.dat namr AvastFileRep.dll data.bin
MSI-16 pck.exe mse.zip f.bat kika _steam.dll bin.dat
MSI-17 z.exe mse.zip f.bat joft win2k.wim bin.dat
MSI-18 ex.exe plugin.cx f.bat ZDW _setup.ini bin.dat
MSI-19 hf.exe update.dat namr AvastFileRep.dll data.bin
MSI-20 ex.exe installers.msu f.bat 000cehjkf MSE.Engine.dll bin.dat
MSI-21 z.exe msi.zip f.bat arima ic64.dll bin.dat
MSI-22 z.exe archive00.x f.bat 00Jmsjeh20 chrome_watcher.dll bin.dat

A multitude of payload hosts

Besides tracking the files and processes that Dexphot uses to execute an attack, we have also been monitoring the domains used to host malicious payloads. The URLs used for hosting all follow a similar pattern. The domain address usually ends in a .info or .net TLD, while the file name for the actual payload consists of random characters, similar to the randomness previously seen being used to generate file names and scheduled tasks. Some examples from our research are shown in the table below.

 

Scheduled task name Download URL
hboavboja https://supe********709.info/xoslqzu.pdi
{C0B15B19-AB02-0A10-259B-1789B8BD78D6} https://fa*****r.com/jz5jmdouv4js.uoe
ytiazuceqeif https://supe********709.info/spkfuvjwadou.bbo
beoxlwayou https://rb*****.info/xgvylniu.feo
{F1B4C720-5A8B-8E97-8949-696A113E8BA5} https://emp*******winc.com/f85kr64p1s5k.naj
gxcxhbvlkie https://gu*****me.net/ssitocdfsiu.pef
{BE7FFC87-6635-429F-9F2D-CD3FD0E6DA51} https://sy*****.info/pasuuy/xqeilinooyesejou.oew
{0575F553-1277-FB0F-AF67-EB649EE04B39} https://sumb*******on.info/gbzycb.kiz
gposiiobhkwz https://gu*****me.net/uyuvmueie.hui
{EAABDEAC-2258-1340-6375-5D5C1B7CEA7F} https://refr*******r711.info/3WIfUntot.1Mb
zsayuuec https://gu*****me.net/dexaeuioiexpyva.dil
njibqhcq https://supe********709.info/aodoweuvmnamugu.fux
{22D36F35-F5C2-29D3-1CF1-C51AC19564A4} https://pr*****.info/ppaorpbafeualuwfx/hix.ayk
qeubpmnu https://gu*****me.net/ddssaizauuaxvt.cup
adeuuelv https://supe********709.info/tpneevqlqziee.okn
{0B44027E-7514-5EC6-CE79-26EB87434AEF} https://sy*****.info/huauroxaxhlvyyhp/xho.eqx
{5A29AFD9-63FD-9F5E-F249-5EC1F2238023} https://refr*******r711rb.info/s28ZXoDH4.78y
{C5C1D86D-44BB-8EAA-5CDC-26B37F92E411} https://fa*****r.com/rbvelfbflyvf.rws

Many of the URLs listed were in use for an extended period. However, the MSI packages hosted at each URL are frequently changed or updated. In addition, every few days more domains are generated to host more payloads. After a few months of monitoring, we were able to identify around 200 unique Dexphot domains.

Conclusion: Dynamic, comprehensive protection against increasingly complex everyday threats

Dexphot is not the type of attack that generates mainstream media attention; it’s one of the countless malware campaigns that are active at any given time. Its goal is a very common one in cybercriminal circles — to install a coin miner that silently steals computer resources and generates revenue for the attackers — yet Dexphot exemplifies the level of complexity and rate of evolution of even everyday threats, intent on evading protections and motivated to fly under the radar for the prospect of profit.

To combat threats, several next-generation protection engines in Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection’s antivirus component detect and stop malicious techniques at multiple points along the attack chain. For Dexphot, machine learning-based detections in the cloud recognize and block the DLLs loaded by rundll32.exe, stopping the attack chain in its early stages. Memory scans detect and terminate the loading of malicious code hidden by process hollowing — including the monitoring processes that attempt to update the malware code and re-infect the machine via PowerShell commands.

Behavioral blocking and containment capabilities are especially effective in defeating Dexphot’s fileless techniques, detection evasion, and persistence mechanisms, including the periodic and boot-time attempts to update the malware via scheduled tasks. As mentioned, given the complexity of the attack chain and of Dexphot’s persistence methods, we released a remediation solution that prevents re-infection by removing artifacts.

Microsoft Defender ATP solutions for Dexphot attack

The detection, blocking, and remediation of Dexphot on endpoints are exposed in Microsoft Defender Security Center, where Microsoft Defender ATP’s rich capabilities like endpoint detection and response, automated investigation and remediation, and others enable security operations teams to investigate and remediate attacks in enterprise environments. With these capabilities, Microsoft Defender ATP provides comprehensive protection against Dexphot and the countless other complex and evolving threats that we face every day.

 

Sample indicators of compromise (IoCs)

Installer (SHA-256):
72acaf9ff8a43c68416884a3fff3b23e749b4bb8fb39e16f9976643360ed391f

MSI files (SHA-256):
22beffb61cbdc2e0c3eefaf068b498b63a193b239500dab25d03790c467379e3
65eac7f9b67ff69cefed288f563b4d77917c94c410c6c6c4e4390db66305ca2a
ba9467e0d63ba65bf10650a3c8d36cd292b3f846983032a44a835e5966bc7e88

Loader DLLs  (SHA-256):
537d7fe3b426827e40bbdd1d127ddb59effe1e9b3c160804df8922f92e0b366e
504cc403e0b83233f8d20c0c86b0611facc040b868964b4afbda3214a2c8e1c5
aa5c56fe01af091f07c56ac7cbd240948ea6482b6146e0d3848d450977dff152

 

 

 

Hazel Kim

Microsoft Defender ATP Research Team

 

 


Talk to us

Questions, concerns, or insights on this story? Join discussions at the Microsoft Defender ATP community.

Read all Microsoft security intelligence blog posts.

Follow us on Twitter @MsftSecIntel.

 

The post Insights from one year of tracking a polymorphic threat appeared first on Microsoft Security.

Going in-depth on the Windows 10 random number generation infrastructure

November 25th, 2019 No comments

Throughout the years, we’ve had ongoing conversations with researchers, developers, and customers around our implementation of certain security features within the Windows operating system. Most recently, we have open-sourced our cryptography libraries as a way to contribute and show our continued support to the security community

For our most recent contribution, we have decided to go in-depth on our implementation of pseudo-random number generation in Windows 10.

We are happy to release to the public The Windows 10 random number generation infrastructure white paper.

This whitepaper explores details about the Windows 10 pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) infrastructure, and lists the primary RNG APIs. The whitepaper also explains how the entropy system works, what the entropy sources are, and how initial seeding works.

We expect academic and security researchers, as well as operating system developers and people with an in-depth understanding of random number generation, to get the most value out of this whitepaper. Note: Some of the terminology used in this whitepaper assumes prior knowledge of random number generators and entropy collection terms.

We welcome and look forward to your feedback on this whitepaper and the technologies it describes in the comments below. We also appreciate any reports of security vulnerabilities that you may find in our implementation.

 

The post Going in-depth on the Windows 10 random number generation infrastructure appeared first on Microsoft Security.

The new CVE-2019-0708 RDP exploit attacks, explained

November 7th, 2019 No comments

On November 2, 2019, security researcher Kevin Beaumont reported that his BlueKeep honeypot experienced crashes and was likely being exploited. Microsoft security researchers collaborated with Beaumont as well as another researcher, Marcus Hutchins, to investigate and analyze the crashes and confirm that they were caused by a BlueKeep exploit module for the Metasploit penetration testing framework.

BlueKeep is what researchers and the media call CVE-2019-0708, an unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability in Remote Desktop Services on Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2. Microsoft released a security fix for the vulnerability on May 14, 2019.

While similar vulnerabilities have been abused by worm malware in the past, initial attempts at exploiting this vulnerability involved human operators aiming to penetrate networks via exposed RDP services.

Microsoft had already deployed a behavioral detection for the BlueKeep Metasploit module in early September, so Microsoft Defender ATP customers had protection from this Metasploit module by the time it was used against Beaumont’s honeypot. The module, which appears to be unstable as evidenced by numerous RDP-related crashes observed on the honeypot, triggered the behavioral detection in Microsoft Defender ATP, resulting in the collection of critical signals used during the investigation.

Microsoft security signals showed an increase in RDP-related crashes that are likely associated with the use of the unstable BlueKeep Metasploit module on certain sets of vulnerable machines. We saw:

  • An increase in RDP service crashes from 10 to 100 daily starting on September 6, 2019, when the Metasploit module was released
  • A similar increase in memory corruption crashes starting on October 9, 2019
  • Crashes on external researcher honeypots starting on October 23, 2019

Figure 1. Increase in RDP-related service crashes when the Metasploit module was released

Coin miner campaign using BlueKeep exploit

After extracting indicators of compromise and pivoting to various related signal intelligence, Microsoft security researchers found that an earlier coin mining campaign in September used a main implant that contacted the same command-and-control infrastructure used during the October BlueKeep Metasploit campaign, which, in cases where the exploit did not cause the system to crash, was also observed installing a coin miner. This indicated that the same attackers were likely responsible for both coin mining campaigns—they have been actively staging coin miner attacks and eventually incorporated the BlueKeep exploit into their arsenal.

Our machine learning models flagged the presence of the coin miner payload used in these attacks on machines in France, Russia, Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Germany, the United Kingdom, and many other countries.

Figure 2. Geographic distribution of coin miner encounters

​These attacks were likely initiated as port scans for machines with vulnerable internet-facing RDP services. Once attackers found such machines, they used the BlueKeep Metasploit module to run a PowerShell script that eventually downloaded and launched several other encoded PowerShell scripts.

Figure 3. Techniques and components used in initial attempts to exploit BlueKeep

We pieced together the behaviors of the PowerShell scripts using mostly memory dumps. The following script activities have also been discussed in external researcher blogs:

  1. Initial script downloaded another encoded PowerShell script from an attacker-controlled remote server (5.135.199.19) hosted somewhere in France via port 443.
  2. The succeeding script downloaded and launched a series of three to four other encoded PowerShell scripts.
  3. The final script eventually downloaded the coin miner payload from another attacker-controlled server (109.176.117.11) hosted in Great Britain.
  4. Apart from downloading the payload, the final script also created a scheduled task to ensure the coin miner stayed persistent.​

Figure 4. Memory dump of a PowerShell script used in the attacks

The final script saved the coin miner as the following file:

C:\Windows\System32\spool\svchost.exe

The coin miner connected to command-and-control infrastructure at 5.100.251.106 hosted in Israel. Other coin miners deployed in earlier campaigns that did not exploit BlueKeep also connected to this same IP address.

Defending enterprises against BlueKeep

Security signals and forensic analysis show that the BlueKeep Metasploit module caused crashes in some cases, but we cannot discount enhancements that will likely result in more effective attacks. In addition, while there have been no other verified attacks involving ransomware or other types of malware as of this writing, the BlueKeep exploit will likely be used to deliver payloads more impactful and damaging than coin miners.

The new exploit attacks show that BlueKeep will be a threat as long as systems remain unpatched, credential hygiene is not achieved, and overall security posture is not kept in check. Customers are encouraged to identify and update vulnerable systems immediately. Many of these unpatched devices could be unmonitored RDP appliances placed by suppliers and other third-parties to occasionally manage customer systems. Because BlueKeep can be exploited without leaving obvious traces, customers should also thoroughly inspect systems that might already be infected or compromised.

To this end, Microsoft customers can use the rich capabilities in Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection (Microsoft Defender ATP) to gain visibility on exploit activities and defend networks against attacks. On top of the behavior-based antivirus and endpoint detection and response (EDR) detections, we released a threat analytics report to help security operations teams to conduct investigations specific to this threat. We also wrote advanced hunting queries that customers can use to search for multiple components of the attack.

 

The post The new CVE-2019-0708 RDP exploit attacks, explained appeared first on Microsoft Security.

Experts on demand: Your direct line to Microsoft security insight, guidance, and expertise

October 28th, 2019 No comments

Microsoft Threat Experts is the managed threat hunting service within Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) that includes two capabilities: targeted attack notifications and experts on demand.

Today, we are extremely excited to share that experts on demand is now generally available and gives customers direct access to real-life Microsoft threat analysts to help with their security investigations.

With experts on demand, Microsoft Defender ATP customers can engage directly with Microsoft security analysts to get guidance and insights needed to better understand, prevent, and respond to complex threats in their environments. This capability was shaped through partnership with multiple customers across various verticals by investigating and helping mitigate real-world attacks. From deep investigation of machines that customers had a security concern about, to threat intelligence questions related to anticipated adversaries, experts on demand extends and supports security operations teams.

The other Microsoft Threat Experts capability, targeted attack notifications, delivers alerts that are tailored to organizations and provides as much information as can be quickly delivered to bring attention to critical threats in their network, including the timeline, scope of breach, and the methods of intrusion. Together, the two capabilities make Microsoft Threat Experts a comprehensive managed threat hunting solution that provides an additional layer of expertise and optics for security operations teams.

Experts on the case

By design, the Microsoft Threat Experts service has as many use cases as there are unique organizations with unique security scenarios and requirements. One particular case showed how an alert in Microsoft Defender ATP led to informed customer response, aided by a targeted attack notification that progressed to an experts on demand inquiry, resulting in the customer fully remediating the incident and improving their security posture.

In this case, Microsoft Defender ATP endpoint protection capabilities recognized a new malicious file in a single machine within an organization. The organization’s security operations center (SOC) promptly investigated the alert and developed the suspicion it may indicate a new campaign from an advanced adversary specifically targeting them.

Microsoft Threat Experts, who are constantly hunting on behalf of this customer, had independently spotted and investigated the malicious behaviors associated with the attack. With knowledge about the adversaries behind the attack and their motivation, Microsoft Threat Experts sent the organization a bespoke targeted attack notification, which provided additional information and context, including the fact that the file was related to an app that was targeted in a documented cyberattack.

To create a fully informed path to mitigation, experts pointed to information about the scope of compromise, relevant indicators of compromise, and a timeline of observed events, which showed that the file executed on the affected machine and proceeded to drop additional files. One of these files attempted to connect to a command-and-control server, which could have given the attackers direct access to the organization’s network and sensitive data. Microsoft Threat Experts recommended full investigation of the compromised machine, as well as the rest of the network for related indicators of attack.

Based on the targeted attack notification, the organization opened an experts on demand investigation, which allowed the SOC to have a line of communication and consultation with Microsoft Threat Experts. Microsoft Threat Experts were able to immediately confirm the attacker attribution the SOC had suspected. Using Microsoft Defender ATP’s rich optics and capabilities, coupled with intelligence on the threat actor, experts on demand validated that there were no signs of second-stage malware or further compromise within the organization. Since, over time, Microsoft Threat Experts had developed an understanding of this organization’s security posture, they were able to share that the initial malware infection was the result of a weak security control: allowing users to exercise unrestricted local administrator privilege.

Experts on demand in the current cybersecurity climate

On a daily basis, organizations have to fend off the onslaught of increasingly sophisticated attacks that present unique security challenges in security: supply chain attacks, highly targeted campaigns, hands-on-keyboard attacks. With Microsoft Threat Experts, customers can work with Microsoft to augment their security operations capabilities and increase confidence in investigating and responding to security incidents.

Now that experts on demand is generally available, Microsoft Defender ATP customers have an even richer way of tapping into Microsoft’s security experts and get access to skills, experience, and intelligence necessary to face adversaries.

Experts on demand provide insights into attacks, technical guidance on next steps, and advice on risk and protection. Experts can be engaged directly from within the Microsoft Defender Security Center, so they are part of the existing security operations experience:

We are happy to bring experts on demand within reach of all Microsoft Defender ATP customers. Start your 90-day free trial via the Microsoft Defender Security Center today.

Learn more about Microsoft Defender ATP’s managed threat hunting service here: Announcing Microsoft Threat Experts.

 

 

The post Experts on demand: Your direct line to Microsoft security insight, guidance, and expertise appeared first on Microsoft Security.

Microsoft and partners design new device security requirements to protect against targeted firmware attacks

October 21st, 2019 No comments

Recent developments in security research and real-world attacks demonstrate that as more protections are proactively built into the OS and in connected services, attackers are looking for other avenues of exploitation with firmware emerging as a top target. In the last three years alone, NIST’s National Vulnerability Database has shown nearly a five-fold increase in the number of firmware vulnerabilities discovered.

To combat threats specifically targeted at the firmware and operating system levels, we’re announcing a new initiative we’ve been working on with partners to design what we call Secured-core PCs. These devices, created in partnership with our PC manufacturing and silicon partners, meet a specific set of device requirements that apply the security best practices of isolation and minimal trust to the firmware layer, or the device core, that underpins the Windows operating system. These devices are designed specifically for industries like financial services, government and healthcare, and for workers that handle highly-sensitive IP, customer or personal data, including PII as these are higher value targets for nation-state attackers.

 

In late 2018, security researchers discovered that hacking group, Strontium has been using firmware vulnerabilities to target systems in the wild with malware delivered through a firmware attack. As a result, the malicious code was hard to detect and difficult to remove – it could persist even across common cleanup procedures like an OS re-install or a hard drive replacement.

Why attackers and researchers are devoting more effort toward firmware

Firmware is used to initialize the hardware and other software on the device and has a higher level of access and privilege than the hypervisor and operating system kernel thereby making it an attractive target for attackers. Attacks targeting firmware can undermine mechanisms like secure boot and other security functionality implemented by the hypervisor or operating system making it more difficult to identify when a system or user has been compromised. Compounding the problem is the fact that endpoint protection and detection solutions have limited visibility at the firmware layer given that they run underneath of the operating system, making evasion easier for attackers going after firmware.

What makes a Secured-core PC?

Secured-core PCs combine identity, virtualization, operating system, hardware and firmware protection to add another layer of security underneath the operating system. Unlike software-only security solutions, Secured-core PCs are designed to prevent these kinds of attacks rather than simply detecting them. Our investments in Windows Defender System Guard and Secured-core PC devices are designed to provide the rich ecosystem of Windows 10 devices with uniform assurances around the integrity of the launched operating system and verifiable measurements of the operating system launch to help mitigate against threats taking aim at the firmware layer. These requirements enable customers to boot securely, protect the device from firmware vulnerabilities, shield the operating system from attacks, prevent unauthorized access to devices and data, and ensure that identity and domain credentials are protected.

The built-in measurements can be used by SecOps and IT admins to remotely monitor the health of their systems using System Guard runtime attestation and implement a zero-trust network rooted in hardware. This advanced firmware security works in concert with other Windows features to ensure that Secured-core PCs provide comprehensive protections against modern threats.

 

Removing trust from the firmware

Starting with Windows 8, we introduced Secure Boot to mitigate the risk posed by malicious bootloaders and rootkits that relied on Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) firmware to only allow properly signed bootloaders like the Windows boot manager to execute. This was a significant step forward to protect against these specific types of attacks. However, since firmware is already trusted to verify the bootloaders, Secure Boot on its own does not protect from threats that exploit vulnerabilities in the trusted firmware. That’s why we worked with our partners to ensure these new Secured-core capabilities are shipped in devices right out of the box.

Using new hardware capabilities from AMD, Intel, and Qualcomm, Windows 10 now implements System Guard Secure Launch as a key Secured-core PC device requirement to protect the boot process from firmware attacks. System Guard uses the Dynamic Root of Trust for Measurement (DRTM) capabilities that are built into the latest silicon from AMD, Intel, and Qualcomm to enable the system to leverage firmware to start the hardware and then shortly after re-initialize the system into a trusted state by using the OS boot loader and processor capabilities to send the system down a well-known and verifiable code path. This mechanism helps limit the trust assigned to firmware and provides powerful mitigation against cutting-edge, targeted threats against firmware. This capability also helps to protect the integrity of the virtualization-based security (VBS) functionality implemented by the hypervisor from firmware compromise. VBS then relies on the hypervisor to isolate sensitive functionality from the rest of the OS which helps to protect the VBS functionality from malware that may have infected the normal OS even with elevated privileges. Protecting VBS is critical since it is used as a building block for important OS security capabilities like Windows Defender Credential Guard which protects against malware maliciously using OS credentials and Hypervisor-protected Code Integrity (HVCI) which ensures that a strict code integrity policy is enforced and that all kernel code is signed and verified.

 

Being able to measure that the device booted securely is another critical piece of this additional layer of protection from firmware compromise that gives admins added confidence that their endpoints are safe. That’s why we implemented Trusted Platform Module 2.0 (TPM) as one of the device requirements for Secured-core PCs. By using the Trusted Platform Module 2.0 (TPM) to measure the components that are used during the secure launch process, we help customers enable zero trust networks using System Guard runtime attestation. Conditional access policies can be implemented based on the reports provided by the System Guard attestation client running in the isolated VBS environment.

In addition to the Secure Launch functionality, Windows implements additional safeguards that operate when the OS is running to monitor and restrict the functionality of potentially dangerous firmware functionality accessible through System Management Mode (SMM).

Beyond the hardware protection of firmware featured in Secured-core PCs, Microsoft recommends a defense-in-depth approach including security review of code, automatic updates, and attack surface reduction. Microsoft has provided an open-source firmware project called Project-Mu that PC manufactures can use as a starting point for secure firmware.

How to get a Secured-core PC

Our ecosystem partnerships have enabled us to add this additional layer of security in devices that are designed for highly-targeted industries and end-users who handle mission-critical data in some of the most data-sensitive industries like government, financial services, and healthcare, right-out-of-the-box. These innovations build on the value of Windows 10 Pro that comes with built-in protections like firewall, secure boot, and file-level information-loss protection which are standard on every device.

More information on devices that are verified Secured-core PC including those from Dell, Dynabook, HP, Lenovo, Panasonic and Surface can be found on our web page.

 

David Weston (@dwizzzleMSFT)
Partner Director, OS Security

The post Microsoft and partners design new device security requirements to protect against targeted firmware attacks appeared first on Microsoft Security.

Top 6 email security best practices to protect against phishing attacks and business email compromise

October 16th, 2019 No comments

Most cyberattacks start over email—a user is tricked into opening a malicious attachment, or into clicking a malicious link and divulging credentials, or into responding with confidential data. Attackers dupe victims by using carefully crafted emails to build a false sense of trust and/or urgency. And they use a variety of techniques to do this—spoofing trusted domains or brands, impersonating known users, using previously compromised contacts to launch campaigns and/or using compelling but malicious content in the email. In the context of an organization or business, every user is a target and, if compromised, a conduit for a potential breach that could prove very costly.

Whether it’s sophisticated nation-state attacks, targeted phishing schemes, business email compromise or a ransomware attacks, such attacks are on the rise at an alarming rate and are also increasing in their sophistication. It is therefore imperative that every organization’s security strategy include a robust email security solution.

So, what should IT and security teams be looking for in a solution to protect all their users, from frontline workers to the C-suite? Here are 6 tips to ensure your organization has a strong email security posture:

You need a rich, adaptive protection solution.

As security solutions evolve, bad actors quickly adapt their methodologies to go undetected. Polymorphic attacks designed to evade common protection solutions are becoming increasingly common. Organizations therefore need solutions that focus on zero-day and targeted attacks in addition to known vectors. Purely standards based or known signature and reputation-based checks will not cut it.

Solutions that include rich detonation capabilities for files and URLs are necessary to catch payload-based attacks. Advanced machine learning models that look at the content and headers of emails as well as sending patterns and communication graphs are important to thwart a wide range of attack vectors including payload-less vectors such as business email compromise. Machine learning capabilities are greatly enhanced when the signal source feeding it is broad and rich; so, solutions that boast of a massive security signal base should be preferred. This also allows the solution to learn and adapt to changing attack strategies quickly which is especially important for a rapidly changing threat landscape.

Complexity breeds challenges. An easy-to-configure-and-maintain system reduces the chances of a breach.

Complicated email flows can introduce moving parts that are difficult to sustain. As an example, complex mail-routing flows to enable protections for internal email configurations can cause compliance and security challenges. Products that require unnecessary configuration bypasses to work can also cause security gaps. As an example, configurations that are put in place to guarantee delivery of certain type of emails (eg: simulation emails), are often poorly crafted and exploited by attackers.

Solutions that protect emails (external and internal emails) and offer value without needing complicated configurations or emails flows are a great benefit to organizations. In addition, look for solutions that offer easy ways to bridge the gap between the security teams and the messaging teams. Messaging teams, motivated by the desire to guarantee mail delivery, might create overly permissive bypass rules that impact security. The sooner these issues are caught the better for overall security. Solutions that offer insights to the security teams when this happens can greatly reduce the time taken to rectify such flaws thereby reducing the chances of a costly breach

A breach isn’t an “If”, it’s a “When.” Make sure you have post-delivery detection and remediation.

No solution is 100% effective on the prevention vector because attackers are always changing their techniques. Be skeptical of any claims that suggest otherwise. Taking an ‘assume breach’ mentality will ensure that the focus is not only on prevention, but on efficient detection and response as well. When an attack does go through the defenses it is important for security teams to quickly detect the breach, comprehensively identify any potential impact and effectively remediate the threat.

Solutions that offer playbooks to automatically investigate alerts, analyze the threat, assess the impact, and take (or recommend) actions for remediations are critical for effective and efficient response. In addition, security teams need a rich investigation and hunting experience to easily search the email corpus for specific indicators of compromise or other entities. Ensure that the solution allows security teams to hunt for threats and remove them easily.
Another critical component of effective response is ensuring that security teams have a good strong signal source into what end users are seeing coming through to their inbox. Having an effortless way for end users to report issues that automatically trigger security playbooks is key.

Your users are the target. You need a continuous model for improving user awareness and readiness.

An informed and aware workforce can dramatically reduce the number of occurrences of compromise from email-based attacks. Any protection strategy is incomplete without a focus on improving the level of awareness of end users.

A core component of this strategy is raising user awareness through Phish simulations, training them on things to look out for in suspicious emails to ensure they don’t fall prey to actual attacks. Another, often overlooked, but equally critical, component of this strategy, is ensuring that the everyday applications that end-users use are helping raise their awareness. Capabilities that offer users relevant cues, effortless ways to verify the validity of URLs and making it easy to report suspicious emails within the application — all without compromising productivity — are very important.

Solutions that offer Phish simulation capabilities are key. Look for deep email-client-application integrations that allow users to view the original URL behind any link regardless of any protection being applied. This helps users make informed decisions. In addition, having the ability to offer hints or tips to raise specific user awareness on a given email or site is also important. And, effortless ways to report suspicious emails that in turn trigger automated response workflows are critical as well.

Attackers meet users where they are. So must your security.

While email is the dominant attack vector, attackers and phishing attacks will go where users collaborate and communicate and keep their sensitive information. As forms of sharing, collaboration and communication other than email, have become popular, attacks that target these vectors are increasing as well. For this reason, it is important to ensure that an organization’s anti-Phish strategy not just focus on email.

Ensure that the solution offers targeted protection capabilities for collaboration services that your organization uses. Capabilities like detonation that scan suspicious documents and links when shared are critical to protect users from targeted attacks. The ability in client applications to verify links at time-of-click offers additional protection regardless of how the content is shared with them. Look for solutions that support this capability.

Attackers don’t think in silos. Neither can the defenses.

Attackers target the weakest link in an organization’s defenses. They look for an initial compromise to get in, and once inside will look for a variety of ways increase the scope and impact of the breach. They typically achieve this by trying to compromise other users, moving laterally within the organization, elevating privileges when possible, and the finally reaching a system or data repository of critical value. As they proliferate through the organization, they will touch different endpoints, identities, mailboxes and services.

Reducing the impact of such attacks requires quick detection and response. And that can only be achieved when the defenses across these systems do not act in silos. This is why it is critical to have an integrated view into security solutions. Look for an email security solution that integrates well across other security solutions such as endpoint protection, CASB, identity protection, etc. Look for richness in integration that goes beyond signal integration, but also in terms of detection and response flows.

 

 

The post Top 6 email security best practices to protect against phishing attacks and business email compromise appeared first on Microsoft Security.

A worthy upgrade: Next-gen security on Windows 10 proves resilient against ransomware outbreaks in 2017

January 10th, 2018 No comments

Adopting reliable attack methods and techniques borrowed from more evolved threat types, ransomware attained new levels of reach and damage in 2017. The following trends characterize the ransomware narrative in the past year:

  • Three global outbreaks showed the force of ransomware in making real-world impact, affecting corporate networks and bringing down critical services like hospitals, transportation, and traffic systems
  • Three million unique computers encountered ransomware; millions more saw downloader trojans, exploits, emails, websites and other components of the ransomware kill chain
  • New attack vectors, including compromised supply chain, exploits, phishing emails, and documents taking advantage of the DDE feature in Office were used to deliver ransomware
  • More than 120 new ransomware families, plus countless variants of established families and less prevalent ransomware caught by heuristic and generic detections, emerged from a thriving cybercriminal enterprise powered by ransomware-as-a-service

The trend towards increasingly sophisticated malware behavior, highlighted by the use of exploits and other attack vectors, makes older platforms so much more susceptible to ransomware attacks. From June to November, Windows 7 devices were 3.4 times more likely to encounter ransomware compared to Windows 10 devices. Considering that Windows 10 has a much larger install base than Windows 7, this difference in ransomware encounter rate is significant.

Figure 1. Ransomware encounter rates on Windows 7 and Windows 10 devices. Encounter rate refers to the percentage of computers running the OS version with Microsoft real-time security that blocked or detected ransomware.

The data shows that attackers are targeting Windows 7. Given todays modern threats, older platforms can be infiltrated more easily because these platforms dont have the advanced built-in end-to-end defense stack available on Windows 10. Continuous enhancements further make Windows 10 more resilient to ransomware and other types of attack.

Windows 10: Multi-layer defense against ransomware attacks

The year 2017 saw three global ransomware outbreaks driven by multiple propagation and infection techniques that are not necessarily new but not typically observed in ransomware. While there are technologies available on Windows 7 to mitigate attacks, Windows 10s comprehensive set of platform mitigations and next-generation technologies cover these attack methods. Additionally, Windows 10 S, which is a configuration of Windows 10 thats streamlined for security and performance, locks down devices against ransomware outbreaks and other threats.

In May, WannaCry (Ransom:Win32/WannaCrypt) caused the first global ransomware outbreak. It used EternalBlue, an exploit for a previously fixed SMBv1 vulnerability, to infect computers and spread across networks at speeds never before observed in ransomware.

On Windows 7, Windows AppLocker and antimalware solutions like Microsoft Security Essentials and System Center Endpoint Protection (SCEP) can block the infection process. However, because WannaCry used an exploit to spread and infect devices, networks with vulnerable Windows 7 devices fell victim. The WannaCry outbreak highlighted the importance of keeping platforms and software up-to-date, especially with critical security patches.

Windows 10 was not at risk from the WannaCry attack. Windows 10 has security technologies that can block the WannaCry ransomware and its spreading mechanism. Built-in exploit mitigations on Windows 10 (KASLR, NX HAL, and PAGE POOL), as well as kCFG (control-flow guard for kernel) and HVCI (kernel code-integrity), make Windows 10 much more difficult to exploit.

Figure 2. Windows 7 and Windows 10 platform defenses against WannaCry

In June, Petya (Ransom:Win32/Petya.B) used the same exploit that gave WannaCry its spreading capabilities, and added more propagation and infection methods to give birth to arguably the most complex ransomware in 2017. Petyas initial infection vector was a compromised software supply chain, but the ransomware quickly spread using the EternalBlue and EternalRomance exploits, as well as a module for lateral movement using stolen credentials.

On Windows 7, Windows AppLocker can stop Petya from infecting the device. If a Windows 7 device is fully patched, Petyas exploitation behavior did not work. However, Petya also stole credentials, which it then used to spread across networks. Once running on a Windows 7 device, only an up-to-date antivirus that had protection in place at zero hour could stop Petya from encrypting files or tampering with the master boot record (MBR).

On the other hand, on Windows 10, Petya had more layers of defenses to overcome. Apart from Windows AppLocker, Windows Defender Application Control can block Petyas entry vector (i.e., compromised software updater running an untrusted binary), as well as the propagation techniques that used untrusted DLLs. Windows 10s built-in exploit mitigations can further protect Windows 10 devices from the Petya exploit. Credential Guard can prevent Petya from stealing credentials from local security authority subsystem service (LSASS), helping curb the ransomwares propagation technique. Meanwhile, Windows Defender System Guard (Secure Boot) can stop the MBR modified by Petya from being loaded at boot time, preventing the ransomware from causing damage to the master file table (MFT).

Figure 3. Windows 7 and Windows 10 platform defenses against Petya

In October, another sophisticated ransomware reared its ugly head: Bad Rabbit ransomware (Ransom:Win32/Tibbar.A) infected devices by posing as an Adobe Flash installer available for download on compromised websites. Similar to WannaCry and Petya, Bad Rabbit had spreading capabilities, albeit more traditional: it used a hardcoded list of user names and passwords. Like Petya, it can also render infected devices unbootable, because, in addition to encrypting files, it also encrypted entire disks.

On Windows 7 devices, several security solutions technologies can block the download and installation of the ransomware, but protecting the device from the damaging payload and from infecting other computers in the network can be tricky.

With Windows 10, however, in addition to stronger defense at the infection vector, corporate networks were safer from this damaging threat because several technologies are available to stop or detect Bad Rabbits attempt to spread across networks using exploits or hardcoded user names and passwords.

More importantly, during the Bad Rabbit outbreak, detonation-based machine learning models in Windows Defender AV cloud protection service, with no human intervention, correctly classified the malware 14 minutes after the very first encounter. The said detonation-based ML models are a part of several layers of machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies that evaluate files in order to reach a verdict on suspected malware. Using this layered approach, Windows Defender AV protected Windows 10 devices with cloud protection enabled from Bad Rabbit within minutes of the outbreak.

Figure 4. Windows 7 and Windows 10 platform defenses against Bad Rabbit

As these outbreaks demonstrated, ransomware has indeed become a highly complex threat that can be expected to continue evolving in 2018 and beyond. The multiple layers of next-generation security technologies on Windows 10 are designed to disrupt the attack methods that we have previously seen in highly specialized malware but now also see in ransomware.

Ransomware protection on Windows 10

For end users, the dreaded ransom note announces that ransomware has already taken their files hostage: documents, precious photos and videos, and other important files encrypted. On Windows 10 Fall Creators Update, a new feature helps stop ransomware from accessing important files in real-time, even if it manages to infect the computer. When enabled, Controlled folder access locks down folders, allowing only authorized apps to access files.

Controlled folder access, however, is but one layer of defense. Ransomware and other threats from the web can be blocked by Microsoft Edge, whose exploit mitigation and sandbox features make it a very secure browser. Microsoft Edge significantly improves web security by using Windows Defender SmartScreens reputation-based blocking of malicious downloads and by opening pages within low-privilege app containers.

Windows Defender Antivirus also continues to enhance defense against threats like ransomware. Its advanced generic and heuristic techniques and layered machine learning models help catch both common and rare ransomware families. Windows Defender AV can detect and block most malware, including never-before-seen ransomware, using generics and heuristics, local ML models, and metadata-based ML models in the cloud. In rare cases that a threat slips past these layers of protection, Windows Defender AV can protect patient zero in real-time using analysis-based ML models, as demonstrated in a real-life case scenario where a customer was protected from a very new Spora ransomware in a matter of seconds. In even rarer cases of inconclusive initial classification, additional automated analysis and ML models can still protect customers within minutes, as what happened during the Bad Rabbit outbreak.

Windows 10 S locks down devices from unauthorized content by working exclusively with apps from the Windows Store and by using Microsoft Edge as the default browser. This streamlined, Microsoft-verified platform seals common entry points for ransomware and other threats.

Reducing the attack surface for ransomware and other threats in corporate networks

For enterprises and small businesses, the impact of ransomware is graver. Losing access to files can mean disrupted operations. Big enterprise networks, including critical infrastructures, fell victim to ransomware outbreaks. The modern enterprise network is under constant assault by attackers and needs to be defended on all fronts.

Windows Defender Exploit Guard locks down devices against a wide variety of attack vectors. Its host intrusion prevention capabilities include the following components, which block behaviors commonly used in malware attacks:

  • Attack Surface Reduction (ASR) is a set of controls that blocks common ransomware entry points: Office-, script-, and email-based threats that download and install ransomware; ASR can also protect from emerging exploits like DDEDownloader, which has been used to distribute ransomware
  • Network protection uses Windows Defender SmartScreen to block outbound connections to untrusted hosts, such as when trojan downloaders connect to a malicious server to obtain ransomware payloads
  • Controlled folder access blocks ransomware and other untrusted processes from accessing protected folders and encrypting files in those folders
  • Exploit protection (replacing EMET) provides mitigation against a broad set of exploit techniques that are now being used by ransomware authors

Additionally, the industry-best browser security in Microsoft Edge is enhanced by Windows Defender Application Guard, which brings Azure cloud grade isolation and security segmentation to Windows applications. This hardware isolation-level capability provides one of the highest levels of protection against zero-day exploits, unpatched vulnerabilities, and web-based malware.

For emails, Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) uses built-in anti-spam filtering capabilities that help protect Office 365 customers against ransomware attacks that begin with email. Office 365 Advanced Threat Protection helps secure mailboxes against email attacks by blocking emails with unsafe attachments, malicious links, and linked-to files leveraging time-of-click protection.

Integrated security for enterprises

Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection allows SecOps personnel to stop the spread of ransomware through timely detection of ransomware activity in the network. Windows Defender ATPs enhanced behavioral and machine learning detection libraries flag malicious behavior across the ransomware attack kill-chain, enabling SecOps to promptly investigate and respond to ransomware attacks.

With Windows 10 Fall Creators Update, Windows Defender ATP was expanded to include seamless integration across the entire Windows protection stack, including Windows Defender Exploit Guard, Windows Defender Application Guard, and Windows Defender AV. This integration is designed to provide a single pane of glass for a seamless security management experience.

With all of these security technologies, Microsoft has built the most secure Windows version ever with Windows 10. While the threat landscape will continue to evolve in 2018 and beyond, we dont stop innovating and investing in security solutions that continue to harden Windows 10 against attacks. The twice-per-year feature update release cycle reflects our commitment to innovate and to make it easier to disrupt successful attack techniques with new protection features. Upgrading to Windows 10 not only means decreased risk; it also means access to advanced, multi-layered defense against ransomware and other types of modern attacks.

 

Tanmay Ganacharya (@tanmayg)
Principal Group Manager, Windows Defender Research

 

 


Talk to us

Questions, concerns, or insights on this story? Join discussions at the Microsoft community and Windows Defender Security Intelligence.

Follow us on Twitter @WDSecurity and Facebook Windows Defender Security Intelligence.

 

Office 365 Advanced Threat Protection defense for corporate networks against recent Office exploit attacks

November 21st, 2017 No comments

The Office 365 Threat Research team has seen an uptick in the use of Office exploits in attacks across various industry sectors in recent months. In this blog, we will review several of these exploits, including a group of Office moniker exploits that attackers have used in targeted as well as crimeware attacks. We will also describe the payloads associated with these exploits andhighlight our research into a particularly sophisticated piece of malware. Finally, we will demonstrate how Office 365 Advanced Threat Protection, Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection, and Windows Defender Exploit Guard protect customers from these exploits.

Exploit attacks in Fall 2017

The discovery and public availability of a few Office exploits in the last six months led to these exploits gaining popularity among crimeware and targeted attackers alike. While crimeware attackers stick to payloads like ransomware and info stealers to attain financial gain or information theft, more sophisticated attackers clearly distinguish themselves by using advanced and multi-stage implants.

The Office 365 Threat Research team has been closely monitoring these attacks. The Microsoft Threat Intelligence Center (MSTIC) backs up our threat research with premium threat intelligence services that we use to correlate and track attacks and the threat actors behind them.

CVE-2017-0199

CVE-2017-0199 is a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in Microsoft Office allows a remote attacker to take control of a vulnerable machine if the user chooses to ignore protected view warning message. The vulnerability, which is a logic bug in the URL moniker that executes the HTA content using the htafile OLE object, was fixed in April 2017 security updates.

Figure 1. CVE-2017-0199 exploit code

Ever since FireEye blogged about the vulnerability, we have identified numerous attacks using this exploit. The original exploit was used in limited targeted attacks, but soon after, commodity crimeware started picking them up from the publicly available exploit generator toolkits. As shown in Figure 2, the creator and lastModifiedBy attributes help identify the use of such toolkits in generating exploit documents.

Figure 2. Exploit kit identifier

A slight variation of this exploit, this time in script moniker, was also released. When activated, this exploit can launch scriptlets (which consist of HTML code and script) hosted on a remote server. A proof-of-concept (PoC) made publicly available used a Microsoft PowerPoint Slideshow (PPSX) file to activate the script moniker and execute a remote code, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. PPSX activation for script moniker

CVE-2017-8570

The July 2017 security update from Microsoft included a fix for another variation of the CVE-2017-0199 exploit, CVE-2017-8570, which was discovered in URL moniker that, similar to HTA files, can launch scriptlets hosted on a remote server. Even though the vulnerability was not exploited as zero-day, the public availability of exploit toolkit created a wave of malicious PPSX attachments.

CVE-2017-8759

In September 2017, FireEye discovered another exploit used in targeted attacks. The CVE-2017-8759 exploit takes advantage of a code injection vulnerability in .Net Framework while parsing WSDL definition using SOAP moniker. The vulnerability was fixed in the September 2017 security update. The original exploit used an HTA file similar to CVE-2017-0199 to execute the attacker code in vulnerable machines. This exploit piqued our interest because it delivered one of the most complex and multiple VM-layered malware, FinFisher, whose techniques we discuss in the succeeding section.

The CVE-2017-8759 exploit soon got ported to PPSX file. Figure 4 below shows an example of the exploit.

Figure 4. CVE-2017-8759 exploit

CVE-2017-11826

Finally, onSeptember 28,2017, Qihoo 360 identified an RTF file in targeted attacks that exploited a memory corruption vulnerability in Microsoft Office. The vulnerability exists in the way Office parses objects within nested Office tags and was fixed in the October 2017 security update. The forced address space layout randomization (ASLR) prevented the exploit from running in Office 2013 and above. Figure 5 shows the nested tags from the original exploit that led to the bug.

Figure 5. CVE-2017-11826 exploit

Payloads

Except for the memory, corruption exploit CVE-2017-11826, the exploits discussed in this blog pull the malware payload from remote locations, which could make it difficult for antivirus and sandboxes to reliably detect these exploits. Additionally, the public availability of scripts that generate exploit templates could make it challenging for incident responders.

As cited above, these exploits were used in both commodity and targeted attacks. Attackers attempt to bypass AV engine defenses using different obfuscation techniques. Here are some of the obfuscation techniques used in attacks that we recently analyzed:

  • Attackers used HLFL as element type in the malicious RTF attachment. This element is not supported in RTF official specification but serves as an effective obfuscation for static detections.

  • Similarly, we have seen attackers using ATNREF and MEQARR elements in malicious RTF attachments.

In most of the attacks we analyzed, the exploits used PowerShell to download and execute malware payloads, which are usually crimeware samples like ransomware or info stealers.

Figure 6. PowerShell payload from the HTA file

However, every now and then, we stumble upon an interesting piece of malware that particularly catches our attention. One such malware is Wingbird, also known as FinFisher, which was used in one of the targeted attacks using the CVE-2017-8759 exploit.

WingBird (also known as FinFisher)

Wingbird is an advanced piece of malware that shares characteristics with a government-grade commercial surveillance software, FinFisher. The activity group NEODYMIUM is known to use this malware in their attack campaigns.

The group behind WingBird has proven to be highly capable of using zero-day exploits in their attacks, as mentioned in our previous blog post on CVE-2017-8759. So far, we have seen the group use the exploits below in campaigns. These are mostly in line with the findings of Kaspersky Labs, which they documented in a blog:

  • CVE-2015-5119 (Adobe Flash)
  • CVE-2016-4117 (Adobe Flash)
  • CVE-2017-8759 (Microsoft Office)
  • CVE-2017-11292 (Adobe Flash)

The interesting part of this malware is the use of spaghetti code, multiple virtual machines, and lots of anti-debug and anti-analysis techniques. Due to the complexity of the threat, it could take analysts some time to completely unravel its functionality. Heres a summary of interesting tidbits, which we will expand in an upcoming detailed report on Wingbird.

The Wingbird malware goes through many stages of execution and has at least four VMs protecting the malware code. The first few stages are loaders that can probe if it is being run in virtualized or debugged environments. We found at least 12 different checks to evade the malwares execution in these environments. The most effective ones are:

  • Sandbox environment checks

    • Checks if the malware is executed under the root folder of a drive
    • Checks if the malware file is readable from an external source and if execution path contains the MD5 of its own contents

  • Fingerprinting check

    • Checks if the machine GUID, Windows product ID, and system Bios are from well-known sources

  • VM detection

    • Checks if the machine hardware IDs are VmBus in case of HyperV, or VEN_15AD in case of VMware, etc.

  • Debugger detection

    • Detects debugger and tries to kill it using undocumented APIs and information classes (specifically ThreadHideFromDebugger, ProcessDebugPort, ProcessDebugObjectHandle)

The latter stages act as an installation program that drops the following files on the disk and installs the malware based on the startup command received from the previous stage:

  • [randomName].cab –Encrypted configuration file
  • setup.cab – The last PE code section of the setup module; content still unknown
  • d3d9.dll –Malware loader used on system with restricted privileges; the module is protected by a VM
  • aepic.dll (or other name) – Malware loader used on admin privileged systems; executed from (and injected into) a faked service; protected by a VM
  • msvcr90.dll – Malware loader DLL injected into explorer.exe or winlogon.exe process; protected by a VM
  • [randomName].7z – Encrypted network plugin, used to spy the victim network communications
  • wsecedit.rar – Main malware dropped executable, protected by a VM

In the sample we analyzed, the command was 3, which led the malware to create a global event, 0x0A7F1FFAB12BB2, and drop malware components under a folder located in %ProgramData%, or in the %APPDATA% folder. If the malware is running with restricted privileges, the persistence is achieved by setting the RUN key with the value below. The name of the key is taken from the encrypted configuration file.

HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run
Value: “{Random value taken from config file}”
With data: “C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\RUNDLL32.EXE C:\PROGRAMDATA\AUDITAPP\D3D9.DLL, CONTROL_RUN”

If the startup command is 2, the malware copies explorer.exe in the local installation directory, renames d3d9.dll to uxtheme.dll, and creates a new explorer.exe process that loads the malware DLL in memory using the DLL sideloading technique.

All of Wingbirds plugins are stored in its resource section and provide the malware various capabilities, including stealing sensitive information, spying on internet connection, or even diverting SSL connections.

Given the complex nature of the threat, we will provide more detailed analysis of the Wingbird protection mechanism and capabilities in an upcoming blog post.

Detecting Office exploit attacks with Office 365 ATP and Windows Defender Suite

Microsoft Office 365 Advanced Threat Protection blocks attacks that use these exploits based on the detection of malicious behaviors. Office 365 ATP helps secure mailboxes against email attack by blocking emails with unsafe attachments, malicious links, and linked-to files leveraging time-of-click protection. SecOps personnel can see ATP behavioral detections like below in Office 365s Threat Explorer page:

Figure 7. Office 365 ATP detection

Customers using Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection can also see multiple alerts raised based on the activities performed by the exploit on compromised machines. Windows Defender Advanced ATP is a post-breach solution that alerts SecOps personnel about hostile activity. Windows Defender ATP uses rich security data, advanced behavioral analytics, and machine learning to detect attacks.

Figure 8. Windows Defender ATP alert

In addition, enterprises can block malicious documents using Windows Defender Exploit Guard, which is part of the defense-in-depth protection in Windows 10 Fall Creators Update. The Attack Surface Reduction (ASR) feature in Windows Defender Exploit Guard uses a set of built-in intelligence that can block malicious behaviors observed in malicious documents. ASR rules can also be turned on to block malicious attachments from being run or launched from Microsoft Outlook or webmail (such as Gmail, Hotmail, or Yahoo!).

Figure 9. Windows Defender Exploit Guard detection

Crimeware and targeted activity groups are always on the lookout for attack vectors to infiltrate systems and networks and deploy different kinds of payloads, from commodity to advanced implants. These attack vectors include Office exploits, which we observed in multiple attack campaigns. The availability of open-source and off-the-shelf exploit builders helps drive this trend.

AtMicrosoft, we dont stop working to protect our customers mailboxes. Our global network of expert research teams continuously monitors the threat landscape for new malware campaigns, exploits, and attack methods. Our end-to-end defense suite includes Office 365 ATP, Windows Defender ATP, and Windows Defender Exploit Guard, among others, which work together to provide a holistic protection for individuals and enterprises.

Categories: cybersecurity Tags:

Detecting reflective DLL loading with Windows Defender ATP

November 13th, 2017 No comments

Today’s attacks put emphasis on leaving little, if any, forensic evidence to maintain stealth and achieve persistence. Attackers use methods that allow exploits to stay resident within an exploited process or migrate to a long-lived process without ever creating or relying on a file on disk. In recent blogs we described how attackers use basic cross-process migration or advanced techniques like atom bombing and process hollowing to avoid detection.

Reflective Dynamic-Link Library (DLL) loading, which can load a DLL into a process memory without using the Windows loader, is another method used by attackers.

In-memory DLL loading was first described in 2004 by Skape and JT, who illustrated how one can patch the Windows loader to load DLLs from memory instead of from disk. In 2008, Stephen Fewer of Harmony Security introduced the reflective DLL loading process that loads a DLL into a process without being registered with the process. Modern attacks now use this technique to avoid detection.

Reflective DLL loading isnt trivialit requires writing the DLL into memory and then resolving its imports and/or relocating it. To reflectively load DLLs, one needs to author ones own custom loader.

However, attackers are still motivated to not use the Windows loader, as most legitimate applications would, for two reasons:

  1. Unlike when using the Windows loader (which is invoked by calling the LoadLibrary function), reflectively loading a DLL doesnt require the DLL to reside on disk. As such, an attacker can exploit a process, map the DLL into memory, and then reflectively load DLL without first saving on the disk.
  2. Because its not saved on the disk, a library that is loaded this way may not be readily visible without forensic analysis (e.g., inspecting whether executable memory has content resembling executable code).

Instrumentation and detection

A crucial aspect of reflectively loading a DLL is to have executable memory available for the DLL code. This can be accomplished by taking existing memory and changing its protection flags or by allocating new executable memory. Memory procured for DLL code is the primary signal we use to identify reflective DLL loading.

In Windows 10 Creators Update, we instrumented function calls related to procuring executable memory, namely VirtualAlloc and VirtualProtect, which generate signals for Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection (Windows Defender ATP). Based on this instrumentation, weve built a model that detects reflective DLL loading in a broad range of high-risk processes, for example, browsers and productivity software.

The model takes a two-pronged approach, as illustrated in Figure 1:

  1. First, the model learns about the normal allocations of a process. As a simplified example, we observe that a process like Winword.exe allocates page-aligned executable memory of size 4,000 and particular execution characteristics. Only a select few threads within the Winword process allocate memory in this way.
  2. Second, we find that a process associated with malicious activity (e.g., executing a malicious macro or exploit) allocates executable memory that deviates from the normal behavior.

Figure 1. Memory allocations observed by a process running normally vs. allocations observed during malicious activity

This model shows that we can use memory events as the primary signal for detecting reflective DLL loading. In our real model, we incorporate a broad set of other features, such as allocation size, allocation history, thread information, allocation flags, etc. We also consider the fact that application behavior varies greatly because of other factors like plugins, so we add other behavioral signals like network connection behavior to increase the effectiveness of our detection.

Detecting reflective DLL Loading

Lets show how Windows Defender ATP can detect reflective DLL loading used with a common technique in modern threats: social engineering. In this attack, the target victim opens a Microsoft Word document from a file share. The victim is tricked into running a macro like the code shown in Figure 2. (Note: A variety of mechanisms allow customers to mitigate this kind attack at the onset; in addition, several upcoming Office security features further protect from this attack.)

Figure 2. Malicious macro

When the macro code runs, the Microsoft Word process reaches out to the command-and-control (C&C) server specified by the attacker, and receives the content of the DLL to be reflectively loaded. Once the DLL is reflectively loaded, it connects to the C&C and provides command line access to the victim machine.

Note that the DLL is not part of the original document and does not ever touch the disk. Other than the initial document with the small macro snippet, the rest of the attack happens in memory. Memory forensics reveals that there are several larger RWX sections mapped into the Microsoft Word process without a corresponding DLL, as shown in Figure 3. These are the memory sections where the reflectively loaded DLL resides.

Figure 3. Large RWX memory sections in Microsoft Word process upon opening malicious document and executing malicious macro

Windows Defender ATP identifies the memory allocations as abnormal and raises an alert, as shown in Figure 4. As you can see (Figure 4), Windows Defender ATP provides context on the document, along with information on command-and-control communication, which can allow security operations personnel to assess the scope of the attack and start containing the breach.

Figure 4. Example alert on WDATP

Microsoft Office 365 Advanced Threat Protection protects customers against similar attacks dynamic behavior matching. In attacks like this, SecOps personnel would see an Office 365 ATP behavioral detection like that shown in Figure 5 in Office 365s Threat Explorer page.

Figure 5. Example Office 365 ATP detection

Conclusion: Windows Defender ATP uncovers in-memory attacks

Windows 10 continues to strengthen defense capabilities against the full range of modern attacks. In this blog post, we illustrated how Windows Defender ATP detects the reflective DLL loading technique. Security operations personnel can use the alerts in Windows Defender ATP to quickly identify and respond to attacks in corporate networks.

Windows Defender Advanced ATP is a post-breach solution that alerts SecOps personnel about hostile activity. Windows Defender ATP uses rich security data, advanced behavioral analytics, and machine learning to detect the invariant techniques used in attacks. Enhanced instrumentation and detection capabilities in Windows Defender ATP can better expose covert attacks.

Windows Defender ATP also provides detailed event timelines and other contextual information that SecOps teams can use to understand attacks and quickly respond. The improved functionality in Windows Defender ATP enables them to isolate the victim machine and protect the rest of the network.

For more information about Windows Defender ATP, check out its features and capabilities and read about why a post-breach detection approach is a key component of any enterprise security strategy. Windows Defender ATP is built into the core of Windows 10 Enterprise and can be evaluated free of charge.

 

Christian Seifert

Windows Defender ATP Research

 


Talk to us

Questions, concerns, or insights on this story? Join discussions at the Microsoft community and Windows Defender Security Intelligence.

Follow us on Twitter @WDSecurity and Facebook Windows Defender Security Intelligence.