Detecting Deepfake Picture Editing

“Markpainting” is a clever technique to watermark photos in such a way that makes it easier to detect ML-based manipulation:

An image owner can modify their image in subtle ways which are not themselves very visible, but will sabotage any attempt to inpaint it by adding visible information determined in advance by the markpainter.

One application is tamper-resistant marks. For example, a photo agency that makes stock photos available on its website with copyright watermarks can markpaint them in such a way that anyone using common editing software to remove a watermark will fail; the copyright mark will be markpainted right back. So watermarks can be made a lot more robust.

Here’s the paper: “Markpainting: Adversarial Machine Learning Meets Inpainting,” by David Khachaturov, Ilia Shumailov, Yiren Zhao, Nicolas Papernot, and Ross Anderson.

Abstract: Inpainting is a learned interpolation technique that is based on generative modeling and used to populate masked or missing pieces in an image; it has wide applications in picture editing and retouching. Recently, inpainting started being used for watermark removal, raising concerns. In this paper we study how to manipulate it using our markpainting technique. First, we show how an image owner with access to an inpainting model can augment their image in such a way that any attempt to edit it using that model will add arbitrary visible information. We find that we can target multiple different models simultaneously with our technique. This can be designed to reconstitute a watermark if the editor had been trying to remove it. Second, we show that our markpainting technique is transferable to models that have different architectures or were trained on different datasets, so watermarks created using it are difficult for adversaries to remove. Markpainting is novel and can be used as a manipulation alarm that becomes visible in the event of inpainting.

Premium Domain Names – transcom.uk
Transcom ISP – The UK’s Best Business ISP
DoubleCheck any website at doublecheck.uk

Are Virtual Machines the New Gold for Cyber Criminals?

Introduction

Virtualization technology has been an IT cornerstone for organization for years now. It revolutionized the way organizations can scale up IT systems in a heartbeat, allowing then to be more agile as opposed to investing into dedicated “bare-metal” hardware. To the outside untrained eye, it might seem that there are different machines on the network, while in fact all the “separate” machines are controlled by a hypervisor server. Virtualization plays such a big role nowadays that it isn’t only used to spin up servers but also anything from virtual applications to virtual user desktops.

This is something cyber criminals have been noticing too and we have seen an increased interest in hypervisors. After all, why attack the single virtual machine when you can go after the hypervisor and control all the machines at once?

In recent months several high impact CVEs regarding virtualization software have been released which allowed for Remote Code Execution (RCE); initial access brokers are offering compromised VMware vCenter servers online, as well as ransomware groups developing specific ransomware binaries for encrypting ESXi servers.

VMware CVE-2021-21985 & CVE-2021-21986

On the 25th of May VMware disclosed a vulnerability impacting VMware vCenter servers allowing for Remote Code Execution on internet accessible vCenter servers, version 6.5,6.7 and 7.0. VMware vCenter is a management tool, used to manage virtual machines and ESXi servers.

CVE-2021-21985 is a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the vSphere Client via the Virtual SAN (vSAN) Health Check plugin. This plugin is enabled by default. The combination of RCE and default enablement of the plugin resulted in this being scored as a critical flaw with a CVSSv3 score of 9.8.

An attacker needs to be able to access vCenter over TCP port 443 to exploit this vulnerability. It doesn’t matter if the vCenter is remotely exposed or when the attacker has internal access.

The same exploit vector is applicable for CVE-2021-21986, which is an authentication mechanism issue in several vCenter Server Plug-ins. It would allow an attacker to run plugin functions without authentication. This leads to the CVE being scored as a ‘moderate severity’, with a CVSSv3 score of 6.5.

While writing this blog, a Proof-of-Concept was discovered that will test if the vulnerability exists; it will not execute the remote-code. The Nmap plugin can be downloaded from this location: https://github.com/alt3kx/CVE-2021-21985_PoC.

Searching with the Shodan search engine, narrowing it down to the TCP 443 port, we observe that close to 82,000 internet accessible ESXi servers are exposedZooming in further on the versions that are affected by these vulnerabilities,  almost 55,000 publicly accessible ESXi servers are potentially vulnerable to CVE-2021-21985 and CVE-2021-21986, providing remote access to them and making them potential candidates for ransomware attacks, as we will read about in the next paragraphs.

Ransomware Actors Going After Virtual Environments

Ransomware groups are always trying to find ways to hit their victims where it hurts. So, it is only logical that they are adapting to attacking virtualization environments and the native Unix/Linux machines running the hypervisors. In the past, ransomware groups were quick to abuse earlier CVEs affecting VMware. But aside from the disclosed CVEs, ransomware groups have also adapted their binaries specifically to encrypt virtual machines and their management environment. Below are some of the ransomware groups we have observed.

DarkSide Ransomware

Figure 1. Screenshot from the DarkSide ransomware group, explicitly mentioning its Linux-based encryptor and support for ESXi and NAS systems

McAfee Advanced Threat Research (ATR) analyzed the DarkSide Linux binary in our recent blog and we can confirm that a specific routine aimed at virtual machines is present in it.

Figure 2. DarkSide VMware Code routine

From the configuration file of the DarkSide Linux variant, it becomes clear that this variant is solely designed to encrypt virtual machines hosted on an ESXi server. It searches for the disk-files of the VMs, the memory files of the VMs (vmem), swap, logs, etc. – all files that are needed to start a VMware virtual machine.

Demo of Darkside encrypting an ESXi server: https://youtu.be/SMWIckvLMoE

Babuk Ransomware

Babuk announced on an underground forum that it was developing a cross-platform binary aimed at Linux/UNIX and ESXi or VMware systems:

Figure 3. Babuk ransomware claiming to have built a Linux-based ransomware binary capable of encrypting ESXi servers

The malware is written in the open-source programming language Golang, most likely because it allows developers to have a single codebase to be compiled into all major operating systems. This means that, thanks to static linking, code written in Golang on a Linux system can run on a Windows or Mac system. That presents a large advantage to ransomware gangs looking to encrypt a whole infrastructure comprised of different systems architecture.

After being dropped on the ESXi server, the malware encrypts all the files on the system:

The malware was designed to target ESXi environments as we guessed, and it was confirmed when the Babuk team returned the decryptor named d_esxi.out. Unfortunately, the decryptor has been developed with some errors, which cause corruption in victim’s files:

Overall, the decryptor is poor as it only checks for the extension “.babyk” which will miss any files the victim has renamed to recover them. Also, the decryptor checks if the file is more than 32 bytes in length as the last 32 bytes are the key that will be calculated later with other hardcoded values to get the final key. This is bad design as those 32 bytes could be trash, instead of the key, as the customer could make things, etc. It does not operate efficiently by checking the paths that are checked in the malware, instead it analyzes everything. Another error we noticed was that the decryptor tries to remove a ransom note name that is NOT the same that the malware creates in each folder. This does not make any sense unless, perhaps, the Babuk developers/operators are delivering a decryptor that works for a different version and/or sample.

The problems with the Babuk decryptor left victims in horrible situations with permanently damaged data. The probability of getting a faulty decryptor isn’t persuading victims to pay up and this might be one of the main reasons that Babuk  announced that it will stop encrypting data and only exfiltrate and extort from now on.

Initial-Access-Brokers Offering VMware vCenter Machines

It is not only ransomware groups that show an interest in virtual systems; several initial access brokers are also trading access to compromised vCenter/ESXi servers on underground cybercriminal forums. The date and time of the specific offering below overlaps with the disclosure of CVE-2021-21985, but McAfee ATR hasn’t determined if this specific CVE was used to gain access to ESXi servers.

Figure 4. Threat Actor selling access to thousands of vCenter/ESXi servers

Figure 5. Threat actor offering compromised VMware ESXi servers

Patching and Detection Advice

VMware urges users running VMware vCenter and VMware Cloud Foundation affected by CVE-2021-21985 and CVE-2021-21986 to apply its patch immediately. According to VMware, a malicious actor with network access to port 443 may exploit this issue to execute commands with unrestricted privileges on the underlying operating system that hosts vCenter Server. The disclosed vulnerabilities have a critical CVSS base score of 9.8.

However, we do understand that VMware infrastructure is often installed on business-critical systems, so any type of patching activity usually has a high degree of impact on IT operations. Hence, the gap between vulnerability disclosure and patching is typically high. With the operating systems on VMware being a closed system they lack the ability to natively install workload protection/detection solutions. Therefore, the defenses should be based on standard cyber hygiene/risk mitigation practices and should be applied in the following order where possible.

  1. Ensure an accurate inventory of vCenter assets and their corresponding software versions.
  2. Secure the management plane of the vCenter infrastructure by applying strict network access control policies to allow access only from special management networks.
  3. Disable all internet access to vCenter/VMware Infrastructure.
  4. Apply the released VMware patches.
  5. McAfee Network Security Platform (NSP) offers signature sets for detection of CVE-2021-21985 and CVE-2021-21986.

Conclusion

Virtualization and its underlying technologies are key in today’s infrastructures. With the release of recently discovered vulnerabilities and an understanding of their criticality, threat actors are shifting focus. Proof can be seen in underground forums where affiliates recruit pentesters with knowledge of specific virtual technologies to develop custom ransomware that is designed to cripple these technologies. Remote Desktop access is the number one access vector in many ransomware cases, followed by edge-devices lacking the latest security updates, making them vulnerable to exploitation. With the latest VMware CVEs mentioned in this blog, we urge you to take the right steps to secure not only internet exposed systems, but also internal systems, to minimize the risk of your organization losing its precious VMs, or gold, to cyber criminals.

 

Special thanks to Thibault Seret, Mo Cashman, Roy Arnab and Christiaan Beek for their contributions.

The post Are Virtual Machines the New Gold for Cyber Criminals? appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

Premium Domain Names – transcom.uk
Transcom ISP – The UK’s Best Business ISP
DoubleCheck any website at doublecheck.uk

Probe into Leak of Cuomo Accuser’s Personnel File

Probe into Leak of Cuomo Accuser’s Personnel File

An investigation has been launched to determine whether New York governor Andrew Cuomo broke the law by allegedly leaking the personnel file of the first of eleven women to accuse him of sexual harassment. 

Cuomo’s former aide Lindsey Boylan first accused him of sexual harassment in December on Twitter. In February, Boylan shared details of the alleged harassment, claiming that Cuomo had compared her to one of his former girlfriends, asked her to play strip poker with him, and made unwanted sexual advances toward her, including forcibly kissing her on the lips.  

Hours after Boylan’s first accusations were made, her personnel records, which included disciplinary recommendations and bullying allegations, were released to media organizations. Boylan, who worked for Cuomo’s team from March 2015 to October 2018, claims the leak was part of a smear campaign orchestrated by Cuomo and his aides to damage her reputation.

It is alleged that Cuomo personally met with advisors to discuss what action to take after Boylan’s accusations came to light. 

New York state whistleblowing laws make it illegal to take retaliatory action against alleged victims of sexual harassment. According to a new report by the Washington Post, investigators for New York State Attorney General Letitia James are probing whether Cuomo and his aides committed a crime by allegedly releasing Boylan’s records. 

In February 2021, Charlotte Bennett, an executive assistant and health policy advisor to Cuomo, accused him of sexual harassment. In the weeks that followed, allegations of inappropriate sexual comments and conduct by the governor were made by former Obama administration member Anna Ruch, policy and operations aide Ana Liss, former press aide Karen Hinton, reporter Jessica Bakeman, Bloomberg reporter Valerie Bauman, aide Alyssa McGrath, attorney Sherry Vill, an anonymous member of the governor’s Executive Chamber staff, and an unnamed aide.

Some of the alleged victims accuse Cuomo’s chief aide Melissa DeRosa of making “intimidating” phone calls after Boylan’s allegations first came to light. DeRosa is further accused of being involved in the drafting of a letter sent to staffers to sign to try to discredit Boylan. 

Cuomo has repeatedly denied the allegations made against him by nearly a dozen professionals. The governor claims he has “never touched anyone inappropriately” and “never made any inappropriate advances.”

Premium Domain Names – transcom.uk
Transcom ISP – The UK’s Best Business ISP
DoubleCheck any website at doublecheck.uk

Nebraska Medicine Data Breach Settlement Approved

Nebraska Medicine Data Breach Settlement Approved

A preliminary settlement has been reached in a lawsuit brought against Nebraska Medicine over a 2020 data security incident. 

Omaha-based Nebraska Medicine suffered a cyber-attack in September 2020. The attack disrupted the healthcare provider’s information technology system, leading to the postponement of patient appointments. 

Staff in the system’s hospitals and clinics had to chart by hand, and access to Nebraska Medicine’s patient portal and to patients’ electronic health records was impacted. 

An investigation into the incident revealed that an unauthorized party used malware to gain access to Nebraska Medicine and University of Nebraska Medical Center’s shared computer network between August 27 and September 20. 

In February, Nebraska Medicine and UNMC began notifying patients and employees whose personal information may have been compromised in the attack. 

Nebraska Medicine reported the hacking incident to the Department of Health and Human Services in February 2020 as a HIPAA breach affecting nearly 216,500 individuals in Nebraska and in other states.

Data exposed in the incident included names, addresses, health insurance details, clinical information, Social Security numbers, and driver’s license numbers.  

A limited number of patients seen at Faith Regional Health Services in Norfolk, Great Plains Health in North Platte, and Mary Lanning Healthcare in Hastings, and whose information was in the Nebraska Medicine/UNMC network, were also impacted by the data breach. 

A class-action lawsuit was filed against Nebraska Medicine in February, citing the exfiltration of sensitive personal data and medical records of tens of thousands of individuals.

A judge for the US District Court of Nebraska has approved a proposed suit settlement that would make all class members who submit a valid claim by a currently unspecified deadline eligible for a reimbursement of up to $300 cash for time and money spent on dealing with the breach.

Claimants who can show documented proof of “extraordinary monetary losses” that were “more than likely” incurred because of the data breach can claim up to $3,000 for an extra year of credit monitoring.

The preliminary settlement provides benefits to only around 126,000 individuals who were notified of the data breach through the mail, including nearly 13,500 who were informed that their Social Security number and/or driver’s license number may have been compromised in the incident.

Premium Domain Names – transcom.uk
Transcom ISP – The UK’s Best Business ISP
DoubleCheck any website at doublecheck.uk

Pennsylvanian Charged over Trump Impersonation Fraud

Pennsylvanian Charged over Trump Impersonation Fraud

A food delivery driver from Pennsylvania has been charged with impersonating former president Donald Trump to defraud social media users. 

Joshua Hall, of Mechanicsburg, was arrested on Tuesday morning and charged with wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

Prosecutors allege that the 22-year-old defrauded hundreds of people from across the United States in a year-long fundraising scam that he devised and executed alone. 

Hall is accused of posing as a former president and as members of that president’s family to create social media accounts that attracted more than 100,000 followers.

Victims of the scam were led to believe that they were donating money to a genuine political organization. Prosecutors say that the organization was fictitious and that Hall pocketed thousands of dollars in donated funds for his own use.

Hall is accused of using photographs of the former president’s family members, including his minor child, to make the fake social media accounts associated with the scam appear authentic.

FBI assistant director-in-charge William F. Sweeney, Jr., said: “Hall led hundreds of people to believe they were donating to an organization that didn’t exist by pretending to be someone he wasn’t, as alleged. As we continue to investigate fraud in all its many forms, we urge the public to remain aware of the prevalence of online scams and exercise due diligence when making donations online.”

The time at which the alleged offense was committed was not specified in a statement published on Tuesday by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, nor were Trump or his family referred to by name. 

However, NBC New York cited an FBI source who said that the Trump family had been exploited in the scam.

In December 2020, Twitter shut down an account allegedly used by Hall to run the scam after the New York Times exposed the account as fake. 

“There was no nefarious intention behind it,” Hall told the Times after the account was closed. “I was just trying to rally up MAGA supporters and have fun.”

If convicted of both charges, Hall could be sentenced to a prison term of up to 22 years.

Premium Domain Names – transcom.uk
Transcom ISP – The UK’s Best Business ISP
DoubleCheck any website at doublecheck.uk

Single Fastly Customer Sparked Global Internet Meltdown

Single Fastly Customer Sparked Global Internet Meltdown

Yesterday’s wide-scale internet outage was triggered when a single Fastly customer changed their settings, it has emerged.

The problem took place on Tuesday June 8, when Fastly, a cloud computing services company, experienced a bug on its content delivery network (CDN). This led to several major websites, including Amazon, Reddit, The Guardian and New York Times being forced offline for 30-40 minutes from around 11am. Additionally, specific sections of other services were affected by the failure.

The problem was resolved relatively quickly, with Fastly revealing in a tweet that it had disabled a “service configuration that triggered disruptions across our POPs globally.”

In a post on its website earlier today, Nick Rockwell, senior vice president of engineering and infrastructure at Fastly, revealed that the problem occurred when one of its customers changed their settings. This exposed a bug in a software update that was issued by the company on May 12 “that could be triggered by a specific customer configuration under specific circumstances.”

It has since created a permanent fix for the bug, which was deployed at 17.25 UTC on June 8.

Rodwell acknowledged that Fastly should have anticipated the outage and said the company is currently “conducting a complete post mortem of the processes and practices we followed during this incident.”

Apologizing for the impact caused, he added: “This outage was broad and severe, and we’re truly sorry for the impact to our customers and everyone who relies on them.”

The update has raised concerns about the resilience of the internet and in particular, the reliance on a handful of companies to run its vast infrastructure. Tim Mackey, principal security strategist at the Synopsys CyRC, commented: “All software has bugs, and it’s not always realistic to test all deployment configurations prior to deploying a new software version. Due to the scalability present in most cloud solutions, businesses have grown accustomed to the resiliency of cloud platforms. So when a bug meets up with an untested deployment configuration in a cloud solution, you can end up with precisely the scenario that Fastly customers found themselves with – a major outage.”

However, Mackey did praise the cloud service provider’s response to the incident so far. “To their credit, the Fastly team quickly identified the issue and created a patch, but not before a number of high-profile web properties were impacted,” he outlined. “The Fastly team indicate that they will be performing a review of their release practices to determine how the bug was able to escape remediation prior to the outage. Such reviews are common within teams following the blameless review cyber-incident process used by DevOps teams. Should that review identify a weakness in development practices commonly found within DevOps teams, I would hope the Fastly team take this opportunity to highlight how other large scale organizations might improve their operations by learning from the Fastly experience.”

Premium Domain Names – transcom.uk
Transcom ISP – The UK’s Best Business ISP
DoubleCheck any website at doublecheck.uk