A never-before-seen malware-dropper, Clast82, fetches the AlienBot and MRAT malware in a savvy Google Play campaign aimed at Android users.

Apple pushed out security updates for a memory-corruption bug to devices running on iOS, macOS, watchOS and for Safari.

How is this even possible?

…26% of companies Positive Technologies tested were vulnerable to WannaCry, which was a threat years ago, and some even vulnerable to Heartbleed. “The most frequent vulnerabilities detected during automated assessment date back to 2013­2017, which indicates a lack of recent software updates,” the reported stated.

26%!? One in four networks?

Even if we assume that the report is self-serving to the company that wrote it, and that the statistic is not generally representative, this is still a disaster. The number should be 0%.

WannaCry was a 2017 cyberattack, based on a NSA-discovered and Russia-stolen-and-published Windows vulnerability. It primarily affects older, no-longer-supported products like Windows 7. If we can’t keep our systems secure from these vulnerabilities, how are we ever going to secure them from new threats?

Privacy in Practice: Securing Your Data in 2021 and Beyond

Technological advancements continually emerge that make our lives easier. Right? As beneficial and convenient as emerging tech is, it can pose serious risks to our online safety and privacy—risks that you might find yourself ill-prepared to handle. In fact, according to our 2021 Consumer Security Mindset research, 45% of Canadian respondents don’t feel very confident about their ability to prevent a cyberattack and believe that they don’t have what they need to ward one off.

With many of us turning to online platforms for things we used to do in-person, activities like banking, shopping, taxes, and more, the need for broader online privacy protection has never been greater. As we continue to integrate technology into our everyday lives, we must learn to recognize the risks they pose and understand how to safeguard our online security.

Telehealth

Telehealth visits have opened the door for many to get the medical care they need when visiting the doctor or going to the hospital isn’t feasible. Digital health platforms have demonstrated many benefits for optimizing time and cost efficiencies for both patients and providers, but at what cost?

Despite efforts to address barriers to virtual healthcare adoption, Canada currently lacks a national framework for governing virtual care. As a result, many healthcare providers are left to act on their best judgements regarding patient data interoperability across provinces and providers. The lack of a pan-Canadian governance framework also makes it difficult for digital health platforms to operate with the assurance of certain security protocols, leaving many of us to wonder how to best protect our data in the face of an ambiguous virtual healthcare system. The risk is made all the more severe when factoring in sensitive biometric data from monitoring devices that can be used for malicious purposes when in the hands of cyber attackers. Those of us who take advantage of digital health devices must understand how to secure our data privacy and control its usage to mitigate further risks.

The first line of defense to ensure your data remains protected is to understand the security policies put in place by your healthcare provider and any third-party digital platforms that they leverage. Additionally, you’ll want to ensure that your healthcare provider uses a telehealth platform that integrates data encryption. Take matters into your own hands by enabling two-factor authentication and use strong passwords across all devices and accounts. Using a VPN and running anti-malware and anti-virus scans can also mitigate the risk of security threats during telehealth visits and while using integrated medical devices.

Education

Student privacy is a top concern as households turn to remote learning. In a rush to optimize remote learning experiences in the face of a rapidly evolving digital landscape, many educators and remote learners may not realize the hazards that put student privacy at risk.

We’re almost a year into distance learning and schools have now adopted a range of technologies to optimize the digital classroom, including virtual learning platforms, holistic learning solutions, and even social media applications. However, many of these digital platforms are not designed for child usage, nor do they have privacy policies in place to ensure that the student data gathered is protected. Many learning platforms may even treat student data as consumer data, raising more red flags regarding student data privacy and compliance. Online learning has also garnered the attention of cybercriminals looking to exploit student data, resulting in online bullying, identity theft, and more.

For educators and parents alike, knowledge is the greatest asset to mitigating the risks of remote learning. IT teams and educators must understand the implications of the student data they collect, govern access to it, and control its usage to comply with child privacy regulations. Parents can take proper precautions by discussing the importance of privacy with their children. Keeping learning platforms up to date and monitoring their children to prevent them from downloading suspicious apps or straying to unknown websites are all ways to ensure safer remote learning environments.

Work

Remote work has become commonplace nowadays as more companies permit their employees to work from home long-term and, for some, permanently. Given the abrupt shift to remote workplaces in the past year, companies have found themselves severely unprepared to handle the security and logistical concerns that accompany a distributed remote workforce.

In a recent Fenwick poll among HR, privacy, and security professionals across industries, approximately 90% of employees now handle intellectual property, confidential, and personal information in their homes. Endpoint security, or the protection of end-user devices such as our laptops and mobile devices, poses more of a concern as employees trade in office networks for their in-home Wi-Fi. If these devices and networks are unsecured or if the data is not encrypted, employees run the risk of exposing sensitive information to hackers. A lack of proper employee security training opens additional opportunities for online threats to take advantage of unsuspecting victims through common phishing scams.

Those of us working from home can help ensure the safety of our company’s confidential information by boosting our awareness of security threats and prevention measures via company-mandated security trainings. Additionally, we can promote a safer remote working environment by practicing basic digital hygiene like keeping all devices and software up to date, using a VPN and a strong password across devices.

Fitness

With the limited availability of in-person exercise classes, many of us have turned to virtual fitness experiences to augment our personal health regimens. Some have even taken their fitness routines one step further to include and high-tech equipment like at-home spin bikes or other wearable devices to track and monitor progress.

Although these devices create a more engaging experience and connect users across the globe through online sharing, there are risks, too. Wearables and other devices embedded with sensors and software that collect and share data across an interconnected network are considered Internet of Things (IoT) technology. IoT devices don’t have the same stringent security protocols as laptops and mobile devices, making them more susceptible to cyberthreats.

To prevent cyber attackers from infiltrating IoT devices connected to your home network, start by securing your network router. Change the default name and password of your router so hackers can’t identify the make and model. Create an additional layer of security by enabling the highest level of encryption to secure your Wi-Fi network. We also suggest creating a guest network for your IoT devices so that even if someone does infiltrate your IoT device, they won’t be able to access other devices like laptops and mobile devices.

Personal Finances

Some of the platforms I use the most allow me to keep track of and manage my finances. Whether it’s my mobile banking app or taking advantage of online tax filing, there is such a convenience in having the ability to pay bills, deposit checks, and more, all with the devices I use every day. But many of us may not realize just how much trust we put into these platforms to protect our online privacy, especially when we don’t have a clear picture of who exactly is on the other end of our online transactions.

While recognizing the signs of online banking and tax-related fraud helps ease the burdens associated with these schemes, there are multiple steps users can take to prevent becoming a victim of these scams in the first place. If you receive a call regarding your taxes, make sure the caller is a CRA employee before handing over money or personal information on the phone. You can also double-check your tax account status and make sure the CRA has your current address and email. This will also show whether you owe a balance if a hacker does try to trick you into paying up. By being mindful of how cybercriminals take advantage of the platforms we use out of convenience, we can better protect against threats to our personal privacy.

Secure Your Technology to Secure Your Life

Digital devices are part of how we live our lives every day, whether we’re taking conference calls on our laptops, tracking the latest mile on our smartwatches, or banking on the go. Although our everyday digital devices make our lives that much more convenient, securing them makes our lives that much safer by minimizing online threats to ourselves and those around us. Safeguarding the digital platforms we use for work, school, fitness, you name it, is the first step to ensuring our private information remains just that—private.

To stay updated on all things McAfee and on top of the latest consumer and mobile security threats, follow @McAfee_Home  on Twitter, subscribe to our email, listen to our podcast Hackable?, and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.

 

The post Privacy in Practice: Securing Your Data in 2021 and Beyond appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

MITRE ATT&CK enterprise is a “knowledge base of adversarial techniques”.   In a Security Operations Center (SOC) this resource is serving as a progressive framework for practitioners to make sense of the behaviors (techniques) leading to system intrusions on enterprise networks. This resource is centered at how SOC practitioners of all levels can craft purposeful defense strategies to assess the efficacy of their security investments against that knowledge base.

To enable practitioners in operationalizing these strategies, the knowledge base provides the “why” and the “what” with comprehensive documentation that includes the descriptions and relational mappings of the behaviors observed by the execution of malware, or even when those weapons were used by known adversaries in their targeting of different victims as reported by security vendors. It goes a step further by introducing the “how” in the form of adversary emulation plans which streamline both the design of threat-models and the necessary technical resources to test those models – i.e., emulating the behavior of the adversary

For scenarios where SOCs may not have the capacity to do this testing themselves, the MITRE Corporation conducts annual evaluations of security vendors and their products against a carefully crafted adversary emulation plan, and it publishes the results for public consumption.  The evaluations can help SOC teams assess both strategy concerns and tactical effectiveness for their defensive needs as they explore market solutions.

This approach is transformative for cyber security, it provides an effective way to evolve from constraints of being solely dependent on IOC-centric or signature-driven defense models to now having a behavior-driven capability for SOCs to tailor their strategic objectives into realistic security outcomes measured through defensive efficacy goals. With a behavior-driven paradigm, the emphasis is on the value of visibility surrounding the events of a detection or prevention action taken by a security sensor – this effectively places context as the essential resource a defender must have available to pursue actionable outcomes.

Cool! So what is this “efficacy” thing all about?

I believe that to achieve meaningful security outcomes our products (defenses) must demonstrate how effective they are (efficacy) at enabling or preserving the security mission we are pursuing in our organizations. For example, to view efficacy in a SOC, let’s see it as a foundation of 5 dimensions:

Detection	Gives SOC Analysts higher event actionability and alert handling efficiencies with a focus on most prevalent adversarial behaviors – i.e., let’s tackle the alert-fatigue constraint!
Prevention	Gives SOC Leaders/Sponsors confidence to show risk reduction with minimized impact/severity from incidents with credible concerns – e.g., ransomware or destructive threats.
Response	Gives SOC Responders a capacity to shorten the time between detection and activating the relevant response actions – i.e., knowing when and how to start containing, mitigating or eradicating.
Investigative	Gives SOC Managers a capability to improve quality and speed of investigations by correlating low signal clues for TIER 1 staff and streamlining escalation processes to limited but advanced resources.
Hunting	Enables SOC Hunters a capacity to rewind-the-clock as much as possible and expand the discovery across environments for high value indicators stemming from anomalous security events.

 

So how does “efficacy” relate to my SOC?

Efficacy at the Security and Technical Leadership levels confirms how the portfolio investments are expected to yield the defensive posture of our security strategy, for example, compare your investments today to any of the following:

Strategy (Investment)	Portfolio Focus	Efficacy Goals
	Balanced Security	Ability to: Focus on prevalent behaviors Confidently prevent attack chains with relevant impact/severity Provide alert actionability Increase flexibility in response plans based on alert type and impact situation Caveats: Needs efficacy testing program with adversary emulation plans
	Detection Focus	Ability to: Focus on prevalent behaviors Provide alert actionability Proactively discover indicators with hunting Caveats: Requires humans Minimal prevention maturity Requires solid incident response expertise Hard to scale to proactive phases due to prevention maturity
	Prevention Focus	Ability to: Confidently prevent attack chains with relevant impact/severity Lean incident response plans Provide alert actionability and Lean monitoring plans Caveats: Hard to implement across the business without disrupting user experience and productivity Typically for regulated or low tolerance network zones like PCI systems Needs high TCO for the management of prevention products
	Response Focus	Ability to: Respond effectively to different scenarios identified by products or reported to the SOC  Caveats: Always reacting Requires humans Hard to retain work staff Unable to spot prevalent behaviors Underdeveloped detection Underdeveloped prevention

 

MITRE ATT&CK matters as it introduces the practical sense-making SOC professionals need so they can discern attack chains versus security events through visibility of the most prevalent behaviors.

Consequently, it allows practitioners to overcome crucial limitations from the reliance on indicator-driven defense models that skew realistic efficacy goals, thereby maximizing the value of a security portfolio investment.

The post Why MITRE ATT&CK Matters? appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

Overview

For the March 2021 Patch Tuesday, Microsoft released a set of seven DNS vulnerabilities. Five of the vulnerabilities are remote code execution (RCE) with critical CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring Standard) scores of 9.8, while the remaining two are denial of service (DoS). Microsoft shared detection guidance and proofs of concept with MAPP members for two of the RCE vulnerabilities, CVE-2021-26877 and CVE-2021-26897, which we have confirmed to be within the DNS Dynamic Zone Update activity. Microsoft subsequently confirmed that all seven of the DNS vulnerabilities are within the Dynamic Zone Update activity.

We confirmed from our analysis of CVE-2021-26877 and CVE-2021-26897, in addition to further clarification from Microsoft, that none of the five DNS RCE vulnerabilities are wormable.

RCE vulnerabilities
CVE-2021-26877, CVE-2021-26897 (exploitation more likely)
CVE-2021-26893, CVE-2021-26894, CVE-2021-26895 (exploitation less likely)

DoS vulnerabilities
CVE-2021-26896, CVE-2021-27063 (exploitation less likely)

A critical CVSS score of 9.8 means that an attacker can remotely compromise a DNS server with no authentication or user interaction required. Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities would lead to RCE on a Primary Authoritative DNS server. While CVSS is a great tool for technical scoring, it needs to be taken in context with your DNS deployment environment to understand your risk which we discuss below.

We highly recommend you urgently patch your Windows DNS servers if you are using Dynamic Updates. If you cannot patch, we recommend you prioritize evaluating your exposure. In addition, we have developed signatures for CVE-2021-26877 and CVE-2021-26897 which are rated as “exploitation more likely” by Microsoft.

DNS Dynamic Updates, Threats and Deployment

Per the NIST “Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Deployment Guide”, DNS threats can be divided into Platform and Transaction Threats. The platform threats can be classed as either DNS Host Platform or DNS Software Threats. Per Table 1 below, Dynamic Update is one of the four DNS Transaction types. The seven DNS vulnerabilities are within the Dynamic Update DNS transaction feature of Windows DNS Software.

Table 1: DNS Transaction Threats and Security Objectives

The DNS Dynamic Zone Update feature allows a client to update its Resource Records (RRs) on a Primary DNS Authoritative Server, such as when it changes its IP address; these clients are typically Certificate Authority (CA) and DHCP servers. The Dynamic Zone Update feature can be deployed on a standalone DNS server or an Active Directory (AD) integrated DNS server. Best practice is to deploy DNS integrated with (AD) so it can avail itself of Microsoft security such as Kerberos and GSS-TSIG.

When creating a Zone on a DNS server there is an option to enable or disable DNS Dynamic Zone Updates. When DNS is deployed as a standalone server, the Dynamic Zone Update feature is disabled by default but can be enabled in secure/nonsecure mode. When DNS is deployed as AD integrated, the Dynamic Zone Update feature is enabled in secure mode by default.

Secure Dynamic Zone Update verifies that all RR updates are digitally signed using GSS-TSIG from a domain-joined machine. In addition, more granular controls can be applied on what principal can perform Dynamic Zone Updates.

Insecure Dynamic Zone Update allows any machine to update RRs without any authentication (not recommended).

Attack Pre-requisites

• AD Integrated DNS Dynamic Updates (default config of secure updates)
  • A DNS server must accept write requests to at least one Zone (typically a primary DNS server only allows Zone RR writes but there are misconfigurations and secondary servers which can negate this)
  • Domain-joined machine
  • Attacker must craft request to DNS server and supply a target Zone in request
• Standalone DNS Server (secure/nonsecure config)
  • A DNS server must accept write requests to at least one Zone (typically a primary DNS server only allows Zone RR writes but there are misconfigurations and secondary servers which can negate this) 
  • Attacker must craft request to DNS server and supply a target Zone in request 

From a Threat Model perspective, we must consider Threat Actor motives, capabilities, and access/opportunity, so you can understand the risk relative to your environment. We are not aware of any exploitation in the wild of these vulnerabilities so we must focus on the access capabilities, i.e., close the door on the threat actor opportunity. Table 2 summarizes DNS Dynamic Update deployment models relative to the opportunity these RCE vulnerabilities present.

Table 2: Threat Actor access relative to deployment models and system impact

The highest risk deployment would be a DNS server in Dynamic Update insecure mode exposed to the internet; this is not best security practice and based on our experience, we do not know of a use case for such deployment.

Deploying AD integrated DNS Dynamic Update in secure mode (default) mitigates the risk of an unauthenticated attacker but still has a high risk of a compromised domain computer or trusted insider being able to achieve RCE.

Vulnerability Analysis

All the vulnerabilities are related to the processing of Dynamic Update packets in dns.exe. The goal of our vulnerability analysis, as always for critical industry vulnerabilities, is to ensure we can generate accurate signatures to protect our customers.

Analysis of CVE-2021-26877

• The vulnerability is triggered when a Zone is updated with a TXT RR that has a “TXT length” greater than “Data length” per Wireshark below:

Figure 1: Wireshark view of exploit packet classifying the DNS packet as malformed

• The vulnerability is in the File_PlaceStringInFileBuffer() function as you can see from WinDbg output below:

Figure 2: WinDbg output of crash while attached to dns.exe

• The vulnerability is an Out of bounds (OOB) read on the heap when the “TXT length” field of DNS Dynamic Zone Update is not validated relative to “Data length”. This could allow an attacker to read up to 255 bytes of memory. Microsoft states this vulnerability can be used to achieve RCE; this would require a further OOB write primitive.
• The memory allocation related to the OOB read is created within the CopyWireRead() function. Relevant pseudo code for this function is below:

• The File_PlaceStringInFileBuffer() function copies data from TXT_data allocated from CopyWireRead() function previously. However, the UpdateRR->TXT length value from Wireshark is not validated and used to copy from *UpdateRR->Data length. Because UpdateRR->TXT length is not validated relative to UpdateRR->Data length it results in a OOB read from heap memory.

Analysis of CVE-2021-26897

• The vulnerability is triggered when many consecutive Signature RRs Dynamic Updates are sent
• The vulnerability is an OOB write on the heap when combining the many consecutive Signature RR Dynamic Updates into base64-encoded strings before writing to the Zone file
• Microsoft states this vulnerability can be used to achieve RCE

Figure 3: Packet containing many consecutive Signature RR dynamic updates. Pay special attention to the length field of the reassembled flow.

Exploitability

Exploiting these vulnerabilities remotely requires both read and write primitives in addition to bypassing Control Flow Guard (CFG) for execution. The DNS protocol has significant remote unauthenticated attack surface to facilitate generating such primitives which has been researched as part of CVE-2020-1350 (SigRed). In addition, per the RR_DispatchFuncForType() function, there are read and write functions as part of its dispatch table.

Figure 4: Path of DNS RR update packet

Figure 5: Dispatch functions for reading and writing

Mitigations

Patching is always the first and most effective course of action. If it’s not possible to patch, the best mitigation is to audit your DNS deployment configuration to limit Dynamic Zone Updates to trusted servers only. For those McAfee customers who are unable to deploy the Windows patch, the following Network Security Platform (NSP) signatures will provide a virtual patch against attempted exploitation of both vulnerabilities, CVE-2021-26877 and CVE-2021-26897.  

NSP Attack ID: 0x4030e700 – DNS: Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability (CVE-2021-26877)
NSP Attack ID: 0x4030e800 – DNS: Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability (CVE-2021-26897)

In addition, NIST “Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Deployment Guide” provides best practices for securing DNS deployment such as:

1. DNS Primary Server should restrict clients that can update RRs
2. Secure Dynamic Update using GSS-TSIG
3. Secondary DNS Server Dynamic Update forwarding restrictions using GSS-TSIG
4. Fine-grained Dynamic Update restrictions using GSS-TSIG

The post Seven Windows Wonders – Critical Vulnerabilities in DNS Dynamic Updates appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

On the off chance you were looking for more security to-dos from Microsoft today…the company released software updates to plug more than 82 security flaws in Windows and other supported software. Ten of these earned Microsoft’s “critical” rating, meaning they can be exploited by malware or miscreants with little or no help from users.

Top of the heap this month (apart from the ongoing, global Exchange Server mass-compromise) is a patch for an Internet Explorer bug that is seeing active exploitation. The IE weakness — CVE-2021-26411 — affects both IE11 and newer EdgeHTML-based versions, and it allows attackers to run a file of their choice by getting you to view a hacked or malicious website in IE.

The IE flaw is tied to a vulnerability that was publicly disclosed in early February by researchers at ENKI who claim it was one of those used in a recent campaign by nation-state actors to target security researchers. In the ENKI blog post, the researchers said they will publish proof-of-concept (PoC) details after the bug has been patched.

“As we’ve seen in the past, once PoC details become publicly available, attackers quickly incorporate those PoCs into their attack toolkits,” said Satnam Narang, staff research engineer at Tenable. “We strongly encourage all organizations that rely on Internet Explorer and Microsoft Edge (EdgeHTML-Based) to apply these patches as soon as possible.”

This is probably a good place to quote Ghacks.net’s Martin Brinkman: This is the last patch hurrah for the legacy Microsoft Edge web browser, which is being retired by Microsoft.

For the second month in a row, Microsoft has patched scary flaws in the DNS servers on Windows Server 2008 through 2019 versions that could be used to remotely install software of the attacker’s choice. All five of the DNS bugs quashed in today’s patch batch earned a CVSS Score (danger metric) of 9.8 — almost as bad as it gets.

“There is the outside chance this could be wormable between DNS servers,” warned Trend Micro’s Dustin Childs.

As mentioned above, hundreds of thousands of organizations are in the midst dealing with a security nightmare after having their Exchange Server and Outlook Web Access (OWA) hacked and retrofitted with a backdoor. If an organization you know has been affected by this attack, please have them check with the new victim notification website mentioned in today’s story.

Susan Bradley over at Askwoody.com says “nothing in the March security updates (besides the Exchange ones released last week) is causing me to want to urge you to go running to your machines and patch at this time.” I’d concur, unless of course you cruise the web with older Microsoft browsers.

It’s a good idea for Windows users to get in the habit of updating at least once a month, but for regular users (read: not enterprises) it’s usually safe to wait a few days until after the patches are released, so that Microsoft has time to iron out any kinks in the new armor.

But before you update, please make sure you have backed up your system and/or important files. It’s not uncommon for a Windows update package to hose one’s system or prevent it from booting properly, and some updates have been known to erase or corrupt files.

So do yourself a favor and backup before installing any patches. Windows 10 even has some built-in tools to help you do that, either on a per-file/folder basis or by making a complete and bootable copy of your hard drive all at once.

And if you wish to ensure Windows has been set to pause updating so you can back up your files and/or system before the operating system decides to reboot and install patches on its own schedule, see this guide.

As always, if you experience glitches or problems installing any of these patches this month, please consider leaving a comment about it below; there’s a better-than-even chance other readers have experienced the same and may chime in here with some helpful tips.

Additional reading:

Martin Brinkman’s always comprehensive take.

The SANS Internet Storm Center no-frills breakdown of the fixes.

 

Globally, hundreds of thousand of organizations running Exchange email servers from Microsoft just got mass-hacked, including at least 30,000 victims in the United States. Each hacked server has been retrofitted with a “web shell” backdoor that gives the bad guys total, remote control, the ability to read all email, and easy access to the victim’s other computers. Researchers are now racing to identify, alert and help victims, and hopefully prevent further mayhem.

On Mar. 5, KrebsOnSecurity broke the news that at least 30,000 organizations and hundreds of thousands globally had been hacked. The same sources who shared those figures say the victim list has grown considerably since then, with many victims compromised by multiple cybercrime groups.

Security experts are now trying to alert and assist these victims before malicious hackers launch what many refer to with a mix of dread and anticipation as “Stage 2,” when the bad guys revisit all these hacked servers and seed them with ransomware or else additional hacking tools for crawling even deeper into victim networks.

But that rescue effort has been stymied by the sheer volume of attacks on these Exchange vulnerabilities, and by the number of apparently distinct hacking groups that are vying for control over vulnerable systems.

A security expert who has briefed federal and military advisors on the threat says many victims appear to have more than one type of backdoor installed. Some victims had three of these web shells installed. One was pelted with eight distinct backdoors. This initially caused a major overcount of potential victims, and required a great deal of de-duping various victim lists.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said many in the cybersecurity community recently saw a large spike in attacks on thousands of Exchange servers that was later linked to a profit-motivated cybercriminal group.

“What we thought was Stage 2 actually was one criminal group hijacking like 10,000 exchange servers,” said one source who’s briefed U.S. national security advisors on the outbreak.

On Mar. 2, when Microsoft released updates to plug the four Exchange flaws being attacked, it attributed the hacking activity to a previously unidentified Chinese cyber espionage group it called “Hafnium.” Microsoft said Hafnium had been using the Exchange flaws to conduct a series of low-and-slow attacks against specific strategic targets, such as non-governmental organization (NGOs) and think tanks.

But by Feb. 26, that relatively stealthy activity was morphing into the indiscriminate mass-exploitation of all vulnerable Exchange servers. That means even Exchange users that patched the same day Microsoft released security updates may have had servers seeded with backdoors.

Many experts who spoke to KrebsOnSecurity said they believe different cybercriminal groups somehow learned of Microsoft’s plans to ship fixes for the Exchange flaws a week earlier than they’d hoped (Microsoft originally targeted today, Patch Tuesday, as the release date).

The vulnerability scanning activity also ramped up markedly after Microsoft released its updates on Mar. 2. Security researchers love to tear apart patches for clues about the underlying security holes, and one major concern is that various cybercriminal groups may have already worked out how to exploit the flaws independently.

AVERTING MASS-RANSOMWARE

Security experts now are desperately trying to reach tens of thousands of victim organizations with a single message: Whether you have patched yet or have been hacked, backup any data stored on those servers immediately.

Every source I’ve spoken with about this incident says they fully expect profit-motivated cybercriminals to pounce on victims by mass-deploying ransomware. Given that so many groups now have backdoor web shells installed, it would be trivial to unleash ransomware on the lot of them in one go. Also, compromised Exchange servers can be a virtual doorway into the rest of the victim’s network.

“With the number of different threat actors dropping [web] shells on servers increasing, ransomware is inevitable,” said Allison Nixon, chief research officer at Unit221B, a New York City-based cyber investigations firm.

So far there are no signs of victims of this mass-hack being ransomed. But that may well change if the exploit code used to break into these vulnerable Exchange servers goes public. And nobody I’ve interviewed seems to think working exploit code is going to stay unpublished for much longer.

When that happens, the exploits will get folded into publicly available exploit testing kits, effectively making it simple for any attacker to find and compromise a decent number of victims who haven’t already patched.

CHECK MY OWA

Nixon is part of a group of security industry leaders who are contributing data and time to a new victim notification platform online called Check My OWA (Outlook Web Access, the Internet-facing Web component of Exchange Server machines).

Perhaps it’s better to call it a self-notification service that is operated from Unit221B’s own web site. Enter an email address at Check My OWA, and if that address matches a domain name for a victim organization, that email address will get a notice.

“Our goal is to motivate people who we might otherwise have never been able to contact,” Nixon said. “My hope is if this site can get out there, then there’s a chance some victim companies are notified and take action or can get att

If the email’s domain name (anything to the right of the @ sign) is detected in their database, the site will send that user an email stating that is has observed the email domain in a list of targeted domains.

“Malicious actors were able to successfully compromise, and some of this information suggested they may have been able to install a webshell on an Exchange server associated with this domain,” reads one of the messages to victims. “We strongly recommend saving an offline backup of your Exchange server’s emails immediately, and refer back to the site for additional information on patching and remediation.”

“We have observed your e-mail domain appears in our list of domains the malicious actors were able to successfully compromise, and some of this information suggested they may have been able to install a webshell on an Exchange server associated with this domain,” is another message the site may return.

Nixon said Exchange users can save themselves a potentially nightmarish scenario if they just back up any affected systems now. And given the number of adversaries currently attacking still-unpatched Exchange systems, there is almost no way this won’t end in disaster for at least some victims.

“There are researchers running honeypots to [attract] attacks from different groups, and those honeypots are getting shelled left and right,” she said. “The sooner they can run a backup, the better. This can help save a lot of heartache.”

Oh, and one more important thing: You’ll want to keep any backups disconnected from everything. Ransomware has a tendency to infect everything it can, so make sure at least one backup is stored completely offline.

“Just disconnect them from a computer, put them in a safe place and pray you don’t need them,” Nixon said.

Virginia Passes New Data Protection Law

Hackers Target Texas University