The delicate process for disclosing software and hardware bugs in medical devices has made important strides in recent years, according to experts, as big manufacturers have set up disclosure programs and the threat of lawsuits against security researchers has receded. Health care cybersecurity hands are now looking to capitalize on what they say is growing trust between manufacturers and researchers to strengthen vulnerability disclosure in the industry.
“There’s still a lot of work to be done to make it better, but man, has it come a far way,” Jay Radcliffe, a cybersecurity researcher at medical device manufacturer Boston Scientific, said at the BSides Las Vegas conference Tuesday. “And as a researcher, that makes me a lot more comfortable doing my disclosures and doing my research.”
Radcliffe, who is diabetic, told the story of a presentation he gave at Black Hat in 2011 on hacking insulin pumps.
“At that time, the state of disclosure was pretty chaotic,” he said. “I didn’t feel comfortable enough going to the manufacturer to disclose that before my talk” out of fear of getting sued.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for example, could have been used to prosecute researchers for accessing copyrighted data on a device. But a three-year exemption to that DMCA provision for “good faith” research, instituted in October 2015, has helped lift the specter of lawsuits. And last year, Radcliffe said he worked hand-in-hand with a different manufacturer when he found the same type of vulnerability in an insulin pump.
“They said, ‘Great. We have a vulnerability intake program and we want to work with you and make sure that we address these issues correctly and safely,’” he recalled. That greater collaboration between researchers and manufacturers in health care mirrors the progress in vulnerability disclosure made in other sectors, such as the automotive industry.
Health care delivery organizations are demanding more secure devices, according to Radcliffe. “They actually are doing their homework and they’re asking lots of questions of us – of how we are testing these devices, how are we guaranteeing that these devices that they’re buying are going to be secure not only now, but secure going forward for the next five, 10, 15 years,” he said.
In recent years, industry heavyweights like Johnson & Johnson have set up vulnerability disclosure programs, while the Food and Drug Administration has advised manufacturers to “systematically” address cybersecurity risk, including through a coordinated disclosure process. Nonetheless, industry insiders say more work is needed to make these practices widespread.
Suzanne Schwartz, a top cybersecurity official at the FDA, said she would like to see wider adoption of vulnerability disclosure programs among medical device manufacturers beyond the “two handfuls” of companies that are leading the way. Within the next year, she said, industry groups will be identifying the concerns and challenges that may be keeping many manufacturers from setting up programs. The goal, she said at the BSides panel, is to ramp up the number of companies that have programs from roughly 15 today to, say, 100.
The maturing of vulnerability disclosure programs comes as the health care industry has grappled with the persistent threat of ransomware, with hackers looking to exploit health care facilities’ reliance on sensitive data. In January, for example, the SamSam ransomware struck an Indiana hospital’s computer network, and hospital officials paid hackers roughly $50,000 to unlock the data.
To prepare for attacks like that, Radcliffe said hospitals need to have a clearer understanding of their IT assets and how to make them more secure. “It makes me very nervous to see the amount of devices that go unpatched,” he said.
For her part, Schwartz said the FDA has been working with cybersecurity company MITRE and the states of Massachusetts and New York to produce “playbooks” in helping hospitals prepare for and respond to such cyberattacks.
Later this month, all of the three major consumer credit bureaus will be required to offer free credit freezes to all Americans and their dependents. Maybe you’ve been holding off freezing your credit file because your home state currently charges a fee for placing or thawing a credit freeze, or because you believe it’s just not worth the hassle. If that accurately describes your views on the matter, this post may well change your mind.
A credit freeze — also known as a “security freeze” — restricts access to your credit file, making it far more difficult for identity thieves to open new accounts in your name.
Currently, many states allow the big three bureaus — Equifax, Experian and TransUnion — to charge a fee for placing or lifting a security freeze. But thanks to a federal law enacted earlier this year, after Sept. 21, 2018 it will be free to freeze and unfreeze your credit file and those of your children or dependents throughout the United States.
KrebsOnSecurity has for many years urged readers to freeze their files with the big three bureaus, as well as with a distant fourth — Innovis — and the NCTUE, an Equifax-operated credit checking clearinghouse relied upon by most of the major mobile phone providers.
There are dozens of private companies that specialize in providing consumer credit reports and scores to specific industries, including real estate brokers, landlords, insurers, debt buyers, employers, banks, casinos and retail stores. A handy PDF produced earlier this year by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) lists all of the known entities that maintain, sell or share credit data on U.S. citizens.
The CFPB’s document includes links to Web sites for 46 different consumer credit reporting entities, along with information about your legal rights to obtain data in your reports and dispute suspected inaccuracies with the companies as needed. My guess is the vast majority of Americans have never heard of most of these companies.
Via numerous front-end Web sites, each of these mini credit bureaus serve thousands or tens of thousands of people who work in the above mentioned industries and who have the ability to pull credit and other personal data on Americans. In many cases, online access to look up data through these companies is secured by nothing more than a username and password that can be stolen or phished by cybercrooks and abused to pull privileged information on consumers.
In other cases, it’s trivial for anyone to sign up for these services. For example, how do companies that provide background screening and credit report data to landlords decide who can sign up as a landlord? Answer: Anyone can be a landlord (or pretend to be one).
SCORE ONE FOR FREEZES
The truly scary part? Access to some of these credit lookup services is supposed to be secured behind a login page, but often isn’t. Consider the service pictured below, which for $44 will let anyone look up the credit score of any American who hasn’t already frozen their credit files with the big three. Worse yet, you don’t even need to have accurate information on a target — such as their Social Security number or current address.
KrebsOnSecurity was made aware of this particular portal by Alex Holden, CEO of Milwaukee, Wisc.-based cybersecurity firm Hold Security LLC [full disclosure: This author is listed as an adviser to Hold Security, however this is and always has been a volunteer role for which I have not been compensated].
Holden’s wife Lisa is a mortgage broker, and as such she has access to a more full-featured version of the above-pictured consumer data lookup service (among others) for the purposes of helping clients determine a range of mortgage rates available. Mrs. Holden said the version of this service that she has access to will return accurate, current and complete credit file information on consumers even if one enters a made-up SSN and old address on an individual who hasn’t yet frozen their credit files with the big three.
“I’ve noticed in the past when I do a hard pull on someone’s credit report and the buyer gave me the wrong SSN or transposed some digits, not only will these services give me their credit report and full account history, it also tells you what their correct SSN is,” Mrs. Holden said.
With Mr. Holden’s permission, I gave the site pictured above an old street address for him plus a made-up SSN, and provided my credit card number to pay for the report. The document generated by that request said TransUnion and Experian were unable to look up his credit score with the information provided. However, Equifax not only provided his current credit score, it helpfully corrected the false data I entered for Holden, providing the last four digits of his real SSN and current address.
“We assume our credit report is keyed off of our SSN or something unique about ourselves,” Mrs. Holden said. “But it’s really keyed off your White Pages information, meaning anyone can get your credit report if they are in the know.”
I was pleased to find that I was unable to pull my own credit score through this exposed online service, although the site still charged me $44. The report produced simply said the consumer in question had requested that access to this information be restricted. But the real reason was simply that I’ve had my credit file frozen for years now.
Many media outlets are publishing stories this week about the one-year anniversary of the breach at Equifax that exposed the personal and financial data on more than 147 million people. But it’s important for everyone to remember that as bad as the Equifax breach was (and it was a total dumpster fire all around), most of the consumer data exposed in the breach has been for sale in the cybercrime underground for many years on a majority of Americans — including access to consumer credit reports. If anything, the Equifax breach may have simply helped ID thieves refresh some of those criminal data stores.
THE FEE-FREE FREEZE
According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, when the new law takes effect on September 21, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion must each set up a webpage for requesting fraud alerts and credit freezes.
Identity thieves can and often do target minors, but this type of fraud usually isn’t discovered until the affected individual tries to apply for credit for the first time, at which point it can be a long and expensive road to undo the mess. As such, I would highly recommend that readers who have children or dependents take full advantage of this offering once it’s available for free nationwide.
In addition, the law requires the big three bureaus to offer free electronic credit monitoring services to all active duty military personnel. It also changes the rules for “fraud alerts,” which currently are free but only last for 90 days. With a fraud alert on your credit file, lenders or service providers should not grant credit in your name without first contacting you to obtain your approval — by phone or whatever other method you specify when you apply for the fraud alert.
Under the new law, fraud alerts last for one year, but consumers can renew them each year. Bear in mind, however, that while lenders and service providers are supposed to seek and obtain your approval if you have a fraud alert on your file,they’re not legally required to do this.
A key unanswered question about these changes is whether the new dedicated credit bureau freeze sites will work any more reliably than the current freeze sites operated by the big three bureaus. The Web and social media are littered with consumer complaints — particularly over the past year — about the various freeze sites freezing up and returning endless error messages, or simply discouraging consumers from filing a freeze thanks to insecure Web site components.
It will be interesting to see whether these new freeze sites will try to steer consumers away from freezes and toward other in-house offerings, such as paid credit reports, credit monitoring, or “credit lock” services. All three big bureaus tout their credit lock services as an easier and faster alternative to freezes.
According to a recent post by CreditKarma.com, consumers can use these services to quickly lock or unlock access to credit inquiries, although some bureaus can take up to 48 hours. In contrast, they can take up to five business days to act on a freeze request, although in my experience the automated freeze process via the bureaus’ freeze sites has been more or less instantaneous (assuming the request actually goes through).
TransUnion and Equifax both offer free credit lock services, while Experian’s is free for 30 days and $19.99 for each additional month. However, TransUnion says those who take advantage of their free lock service agree to receive targeted marketing offers. What’s more, TransUnion also pushes consumers who sign up for its free lock service to subscribe to its “premium” lock services for a monthly fee with a perpetual auto-renewal.
Unsurprisingly, the bureaus’ use of the term credit lock has confused many consumers; this was almost certainly by design. But here’s one basic fact consumers should keep in mind about these lock services: Unlike freezes, locks are not governed by any law, meaning that the credit bureaus can change the terms of these arrangements when and if it suits them to do so.
If you’d like to go ahead with freezing your credit files now, this Q&A post from the Equifax breach explains the basics, and includes some other useful tips for staying ahead of identity thieves. Otherwise, check back here later this month for more details on the new free freeze sites.
Originally Seen on Wired by: Andy Greenberg on 8/13/18
WHEN THE CYBERSECURITY industry warns about the nightmare of hackers causing blackouts, the scenario they describe typically entails an elite team of hackers breaking into the inner sanctum of a power utility to start flipping switches. But one group of researchers has imagined how an entire power grid could be taken down by hacking a less centralized and protected class of targets: home air conditioners and water heaters. Lots of them.
At the Usenix Security conference this week, a group of Princeton University security researchers will present a study that considers a little-examined question in power grid cybersecurity: What if hackers attacked not the supply side of the power grid, but the demand side? In a series of simulations, the researchers imagined what might happen if hackers controlled a botnet composed of thousands of silently hacked consumer internet of things devices, particularly power-hungry ones like air conditioners, water heaters, and space heaters. Then they ran a series of software simulations to see how many of those devices an attacker would need to simultaneously hijack to disrupt the stability of the power grid.
Their answers point to a disturbing, if not quite yet practical scenario: In a power network large enough to serve an area of 38 million people—a population roughly equal to Canada or California—the researchers estimate that just a one percent bump in demand might be enough to take down the majority of the grid. That demand increase could be created by a botnet as small as a few tens of thousands of hacked electric water heaters or a couple hundred thousand air conditioners.
“Power grids are stable as long as supply is equal to demand,” says Saleh Soltan, a researcher in Princeton’s Department of Electrical Engineering, who led the study. “If you have a very large botnet of IoT devices, you can really manipulate the demand, changing it abruptly, any time you want.”
Just a one percent bump in demand might be enough to take down the majority of the grid.
The result of that botnet-induced imbalance, Soltan says, could be cascading blackouts. When demand in one part of the grid rapidly increases, it can overload the current on certain power lines, damaging them or more likely triggering devices called protective relays, which turn off the power when they sense dangerous conditions. Switching off those lines puts more load on the remaining ones, potentially leading to a chain reaction.
“Fewer lines need to carry the same flows and they get overloaded, so then the next one will be disconnected and the next one,” says Soltan. “In the worst case, most or all of them are disconnected, and you have a blackout in most of your grid.”
Power utility engineers, of course, expertly forecast fluctuations in electric demand on a daily basis. They plan for everything from heat waves that predictably cause spikes in air conditioner usage to the moment at the end of British soap opera episodes when hundreds of thousands of viewers all switch on their tea kettles. But the Princeton researchers’ study suggests that hackers could make those demand spikes not only unpredictable, but maliciously timed.
The researchers don’t actually point to any vulnerabilities in specific household devices, or suggest how exactly they might be hacked. Instead, they start from the premise that a large number of those devices could somehow be compromised and silently controlled by a hacker. That’s arguably a realistic assumption, given the myriad vulnerabilities other security researchers and hackers have found in the internet of things. One talk at the Kaspersky Analyst Summit in 2016 described security flaws in air conditioners that could be used to pull off the sort of grid disturbance that the Princeton researchers describe. And real-world malicious hackers have compromised everything from refrigerators to fish tanks.
Given that assumption, the researchers ran simulations in power grid software MATPOWER and Power World to determine what sort of botnet would could disrupt what size grid. They ran most of their simulations on models of the Polish power grid from 2004 and 2008, a rare country-sized electrical system whose architecture is described in publicly available records. They found they could cause a cascading blackout of 86 percent of the power lines in the 2008 Poland grid model with just a one percent increase in demand. That would require the equivalent of 210,000 hacked air conditioners, or 42,000 electric water heaters.
Building a botnet of the same size out of more power-hungry IoT devices is probably impossible today, says Ben Miller, a former cybersecurity engineer at electric utility Constellation Energy and now the director of the threat operations center at industrial security firm Dragos. There simply aren’t enough high-power smart devices in homes, he says, especially since the entire botnet would have to be within the geographic area of the target electrical grid, not distributed across the world like the Mirai botnet.
‘If you have a very large botnet of IoT devices, you can really manipulate the demand, changing it abruptly, any time you want.’
SALEH SOLTAN, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
But as internet-connected air conditioners, heaters, and the smart thermostats that control them increasingly show up in homes for convenience and efficiency, a demand-based attack like the one the Princeton researchers describes could become more practical than one that targets grid operators. “It’s as simple as running a botnet. When a botnet is successful, it can scale by itself. That makes the attack easier,” Miller says. “It’s really hard to attack all the generation sites on a grid all at once. But with a botnet you could attack all these end user devices at once and have some sort of impact.”
The Princeton researchers modeled more devious techniques their imaginary IoT botnet might use to mess with power grids, too. They found it was possible to increase demand in one area while decreasing it in another, so that the total load on a system’s generators remains constant while the attack overloads certain lines. That could make it even harder for utility operators to figure out the source of the disruption.
If a botnet did succeed in taking down a grid, the researchers’ models showed it would be even easier to keep it down as operators attempted to bring it back online, triggering smaller scale versions of their attack in the sections or “islands” of the grid that recover first. And smaller scale attacks could force utility operators to pay for expensive backup power supplies, even if they fall short of causing actual blackouts. And the researchers point out that since the source of the demand spikes would be largely hidden from utilities, attackers could simply try them again and again, experimenting until they had the desired effect.
The owners of the actual air conditioners and water heaters might notice that their equipment was suddenly behaving strangely. But that still wouldn’t immediately be apparent to the target energy utility. “Where do the consumers report it?” asks Princeton’s Soltan. “They don’t report it to Con Edison, they report it to the manufacturer of the smart device. But the real impact is on the power system that doesn’t have any of this data.”
That disconnect represents the root of the security vulnerability that utility operators need to fix, Soltan argues. Just as utilities carefully model heat waves and British tea times and keep a stock of energy in reserve to cover those demands, they now need to account for the number of potentially hackable high-powered devices on their grids, too. As high-power smart-home gadgets multiply, the consequences of IoT insecurity could someday be more than just a haywire thermostat, but entire portions of a country going dark.
ON FRIDAY, BRITISH Airways disclosed a data breach impacting customer information from roughly 380,000 booking transactions made between August 21 and September 5 of this year. The company said that names, addresses, email addresses, and sensitive payment card details were all compromised. Now, researchers from the threat detection firm RiskIQ have shed new light on how the attackers pulled off the heist.
RiskIQ published details tracking the British Airways hackers’ strategy on Tuesday, also linking the intrusion to a criminal hacking gang that has been active since 2015. The group, which RiskIQ calls Magecart, is known for web-based credit card skimming—finding websites that don’t secure payment data entry forms, and vacuuming up everything that gets submitted. But while Magecart has previously been known to use the same broadly targeted code to scoop up data from various third-party processors, RiskIQ found that the attack on British Airways was much more tailored to the company’s specific infrastructure.
“We’ve been tracking the Magecart actors for a long time and one of the developments in 2017 was … they started to invest time into targets to find ways to breach specific high-profile companies, like Ticketmaster,” says RiskIQ threat researcher Yonathan Klijnsma. “The British Airways attack we see as an extension of this campaign where they’ve set up specialized infrastructure mimicking the victim site.”
In its initial disclosure, British Airways said that the breach didn’t impact passport numbers or other travel data. But the company later clarified that the compromised data included payment card expiration dates and Card Verification Value codes—the extra three or four-digit numbers that authenticate a card—even though British Airways has said it does not store CVVs. British Airways further noted that the breach only impacted customers who completed transactions during a specific timeframe—22:58 BST on August 21 through 21:45 BST on September 5.
These details served as clues, leading analysts at RiskIQ and elsewhere to suspect that the British Airways hackers likely used a “cross-site scripting” attack, in which bad actors identify a poorly secured web page component and inject their own code into it to alter a victim site’s behavior. The attack doesn’t necessarily involve penetrating an organization’s network or servers, which would explain how hackers only accessed information submitted during a very specific timeframe, and compromised data that British Airways itself doesn’t store.
‘The British Airways attack we see as an extension of this campaign where they’ve set up specialized infrastructure mimicking the victim site.’
YONATHAN KLIJNSMA, RISKIQ
The script is connected to the British Airways baggage claim information page; the last time it had been modified prior to the breach was December 2012. Klijnsma quickly noticed that attackers revised the component to include code—just 22 lines of it—often used in clandestine manipulations. The malicious code grabbed data that customers entered into a payment form, and sent it to an attacker-controlled server when a user clicked or tapped a submission button. The attackers even paid to set up a Secure Socket Layer certificate for their server, a credential that confirms a server has web encryption enabled to protect data in transit. Attackers of all sorts have increasingly used these certificates to help create an air of legitimacy—even though an encrypted site is not necessarily safe.
While the attack wasn’t elaborate, it was effective, because it was tailored to the specific scripting and data flow weaknesses of the British Airways site.
British Airways said in a statement to WIRED on Tuesday, “As this is a criminal investigation, we are unable to comment on speculation.”1 RiskIQ says it gave the findings to the UK’s National Crime Agency and National Cyber Security Centre, which are investigating the breach with British Airways. “We are working with partners to better understand this incident and how it has affected customers,” an NCSC spokesperson said of the breach on Friday.
RiskIQ says it is attributing the incident to Magecart because the skimmer code injected into the British Airways website is a modified version of the group’s hallmark script. RiskIQ also views the attack as an evolution of the techniques used in the recent Ticketmaster breach, which RiskIQ linked to Magecart, though with the added innovation of directly targeting a victim’s site rather than compromising a third party. And some of the attack infrastructure, like the web server hosting and domain name, point to the group as well.
So far British Airways and law enforcement haven’t publicly commented on this attribution, but Klijnsma says the other takeaway for now is the prevalence of tiny website vulnerabilities that can quickly turn into huge exposures.
“It comes down to knowing your web-facing assets,” Klijnsma says. “Don’t overexpose—only expose what you need. The consequences, as seen in this incident, can be really, really bad.”
The headlines love to talk about sophisticated hacking gangs, exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities to break their way into businesses and steal corporate data.
It seems not a day goes past without a security firm warning about a new strain of ransomware, or how criminals are planting cryptomining code on poorly-protected IoT devices and insecure data centres.
And although these are real problems and shouldn’t be ignored, I would argue that there is another more down-to-earth threat that is more commonly encountered and has the potential to cause massive harm to your organisation.
If you were to make a list of the most common causes of security breaches, it is phishing attacks that would surely dominate.
A recent study of 100 UK-based CISOs confirms that phishing is a major concern, with nearly half of respondents blaming the phenomenon for the biggest security incidents they had suffered in the last 12 months.
The figures speak for themselves:
More than twice as many breaches were blamed on phishing rather than malware (48% compared to 22%)
In fact, even when malware was combined with unpatched systems (coming to a total of 41% of reports) it still failed to be as big of a problem as phishing.
A phishing attack is considerably easier for a criminal to orchestrate than the creation of a brand new piece of malware, and can be reused time and time again with often little or no need for change between victims.
For instance, if you were an online criminal and your intention was to break into the cloud service used by a corporation in order to steal their sensitive documents, you could use the same phishing template posing as the cloud service time and time again.
Similarly, if your intention was to – say – break into an organisation’s email system and you knew that they used Office 365, you could simply construct an email that tricks the victim into clicking on a link that they believed would log them into their Office 365 account, but really was designed to steal their password.
Most users will find it very hard to tell the difference between a fake login page and a real one.
And if your organisation is being specifically targeted by hackers, they may have gone to additional effort to make the webpage which aims to steal your login credentials even more sophisticated.
The browser’s URL bar is perhaps where the most obvious clues of trickery can be observed, but how many users can we really expect to carefully inspect the sometimes lengthy and complex URL?
It’s only human to click without thinking, to fail to spot where the URL was really pointing, to enter a password on auto-pilot without realising what you’ve just done.
I don’t believe that raising awareness amongst users of the tricks used by phishing pages, and to look for clues in the URL bar, is a waste of time – but we must recognise that if a person’s role is not security-focused, it’s unfair and unrealistic to assume that they will always have their guard up and be alert to potential threats.
A stronger defence, therefore, is to prevent as many suspicious emails as possible from entering your organisation in the first place, visibly warn users on-screen to take additional caution when an email originates from outside the business or if it contains keywords associated with phishing emails, enable multi-factor authentication wherever possible, and deploy a enterprise password management solution.
These last two points I believe are particularly important, as they put technology to work in helping reduce the chances of what is essentially a human problem.
More and more services now offer business users the option of enable multi-factor authentication or two-step verification. The huge security benefit of turning on such features is that even if online criminals do manage to steal the username and password of an account, they will not be able to access it unless they also have the one-time-password (OTP) used for an additional layer of authentication.
Systems like this are not necessarily completely fool-proof, and a sophisticated and determined attack may be prepared to go to the additional efforts required to try to still crack into accounts – but there is no doubt that it is considerably more difficult for a data breach to occur if such additional levels of authentication are in place.
Password managers also bring a big benefit in the fight against phishing. That’s because, aside from their well-understood talent for storing strong passwords securely, password managers can also offer to enter a username and password when they recognise a login page.
In other words, if they *don’t* recognise a login page – perhaps because the potential victim’s browser has ended up on a bogus webpage with a lookalike but non-identical URL – the password manager will not offer to enter their credentials.
Phishing may not be the sexiest threat out there, but do not underestimate its seriousness – and the impact it could have on your organisation if not treated with respect.
Originally Seen: Bleepingcomputer.com on September 2, 2018 by Lawrence Abrams
Every once in a while you come across a really strange malware and such is the case with a new ransomware that only encrypts .EXE files on a computer. It then displays a screen with a picture of President Obama that asks for a “tip” to decrypt the files.
First tweeted by MalwareHunterTeam, this ransomware has the bizarre title of “Barack Obama’s Everlasting Blue Blackmail Virus” as shown by the file properties below.
When executed, this ransomware will terminate various processes associated with antivirus software such as Kaspersky, McAfee, and Rising Antivirus . The commands executed to kill the processes are:
It will then scan the computer for .exe files and encrypt them. When encrypting files, it will target all .EXE files, even those that are located under the Windows folder. Other ransomware in the past that encrypted executables typically avoid the Windows folder so that it does not cause problems with the proper execution of the operating system.
As part of the encryption process, this ransomware will also modify the Registry keys associated with .exe files so that they use a new icon and run the virus every time someone launches an executable. The modified keys are listed below.
The message in the ransomware interface states that users should contact the attacker at the firstname.lastname@example.org for payment instructions.
Hello, your computer is encrypted by me! Yeah, that means your EXE file isn't open! Because I encrypted it.
So you can decrypt it, but you have to tip it. This is a big thing. You can email this email: email@example.com gets more information.
It is unknown how this ransomware is distributed or if the developer will even provide a decryption key if paid.
Obama is not the only President to have had a ransomware created after him. Prior to the 2016 United Stated presidential election, the The Donald Trump Ransomware was released.
The Trump Ransomware was a development version that had built-in decryption.
Originally Seen: Cybersecurity.com on August 21, 2018 by Sean Lyngaas
The Russian intelligence office that breached the Democratic National Committee in 2016 has spoofed websites associated with the U.S. Senate and conservative think tanks in a further attempt to sow discord, according to new research from Microsoft.
The tech giant last week executed a court order and shut down six internet domains set up by the Kremlin-linked hacking group known as Fancy Bear or APT 28, Microsoft President Brad Smith said.
“We have now used this approach 12 times in two years to shut down 84 fake websites associated with this group,” Smith wrote in a blog post. “We’re concerned that these and other attempts pose security threats to a broadening array of groups connected with both American political parties in the run-up to the 2018 elections.”
The domains were constructed to look like they belonged to the Hudson Institute and International Republican Institute, but were in fact phishing websites meant to steal credentials.
The two think tanks are conservative, yet count many critics of U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin among their members. The International Republican Institute lists Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as board members. The Hudson Institute and International Republican Institute also have programs that promote democracy and good governance worldwide.
There is no evidence that the domains had been used to carry out successful cyberattacks, according to Microsoft. The company says it continues to work with both think tanks and the U.S. Senate to guard against any further attacks.
The attacks come as more and more instances of cyberattacks directed at the 2018 midterm elections come to light. Last month, Russian intelligence targeted Sen. Claire McCaskill, a critic of Moscow and a red-state Democrat who faces a tough reelection bid in Missouri. Additionally, a number of election websites have been hit with DDoS attempts during their primary elections.
“We are concerned by the continued activity targeting these and other sites and directed toward elected officials, politicians, political groups and think tanks across the political spectrum in the United States,” Microsoft’s blog post read. “Taken together, this pattern mirrors the type of activity we saw prior to the 2016 election in the United States and the 2017 election in France.”
Smith also announced that Microsoft was providing cybersecurity protection for candidates, campaigns and political institutions that use Office 365 at no additional cost.
When news hit this week that West Virginian military members serving abroad will become the first people to vote by phone in a major US election this November, security experts were dismayed. For years, they have warned that all forms of online voting are particularly vulnerable to attacks, and with signs that the midterm elections are already being targeted, they worry this is exactly the wrong time to roll out a new method. Experts who spoke to WIRED doubt that Voatz, the Boston-based startup whose app will run the West Virginia mobile voting, has figured out how to secure online voting when no one else has. At the very least, they are concerned about the lack of transparency.
“From what is available publicly about this app, it’s no different from sending voting materials over the internet,” says Marian Schneider, president of the nonpartisan advocacy group Verified Voting. “So that means that all the built-in vulnerability of doing the voting transactions over the internet is present.”
And there are a lot of vulnerabilities when it comes to voting over the internet. The device a person is using could be compromised by malware. Or their browser could be compromised. In many online voting systems, voters receive a link to an online portal in an email from their election officials—a link that could be spoofed to redirect to a different website. There’s also the risk that someone could impersonate the voter. The servers that online voting systems rely on could themselves be targeted by viruses to tamper with votes or by DDoS attacks to bring down the whole system. Crucially, electronic votes don’t create the paper trail that allows officials to audit elections after the fact, or to serve as a backup if there is in fact tampering.
But the thing is, people want to vote by phone. In a 2016 Consumer Reportssurvey of 3,649 voting-age Americans, 33 percent of respondents said that they would be more likely to vote if they could do it from an internet-connected device like a smartphone. (Whether it would actually increase voter turnout is unclear; a 2014 report conducted by an independent panel on internet voting in British Columbia concludes that, when all factors are considered, online voting doesn’t actually lead more people to vote.)
Thirty-one states and Washington, DC, already allow certain people, mostly service members abroad, to file absentee ballots online, according to Verified Voting. But in 28 of those states—including Alaska, where any registered voter can vote online—online voters must waive their right to a secret ballot, underscoring another major risk that security experts worry about with online voting: that it can’t protect voter privacy.
“Because of current technological limitations, and the unique challenges of running public elections, it is impossible to maintain separation of voters’ identities from their votes when Internet voting is used,” concludes a 2016 joint report from Common Cause, Verified Voting, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. That’s true whether those votes were logged by email, fax, or an online portal.
Voatz says it’s different. The 12-person startup, which raised $2.2 million in venture capital in January, has worked on dozens of pilot elections, including primaries in two West Virginia counties this May. On a website FAQ, it notes, “There are several important differences between traditional Internet voting and the West Virginia pilot—mainly, security.”
Voatz CEO Nimit Sawhney says the app has two features that make it more secure than other forms of online voting: the biometrics it uses to authenticate a voter and the blockchain ledger where it stores the votes.
The biometrics part occurs when a voter authenticates their identity using a fingerprint scan on their phones. The app works only on certain Androids and recent iPhones with that feature. Voters must also upload a photo of an official ID—which Sawhney says Voatz verifies by scanning their barcodes—and a video selfie, which Voatz will match to the ID using facial-recognition technology. (“You have to move your face and blink your eyes to make sure you are not taking a video of somebody else or taking a picture of a picture,” Sawhney says.) It’s up to election officials to decide whether a voter should have to upload a new selfie or fingerprint scan each time they access the app or just the first time.
“We feel like that extra level of anonymization on the phone and on the network makes it really really hard to reverse-engineer.”
NIMIT SAWHNEY, VOATZ
The blockchain comes in after the votes are entered. “The network then verifies it—there’s a whole bunch of checks—then adds it to the blockchain, where it stays in a lockbox until election night,” Sawhney says. Voatz uses a permissioned blockchain, which is run by a specific group of people with granted access, as opposed to a public blockchain like Bitcoin. And in order for election officials to access the votes on election night, they need Voatz to hand deliver them the cryptographic keys.
Sawhney says that election officials print out a copy of each vote once they access them, in order to do an audit. He also tells WIRED that in the version of the app that people will use in November, Voatz will add a way for voters to take a screenshot of their vote and have that separately sent to election officials for a secondary audit.
To address concerns about ballot secrecy, Sawhney says Voatz deletes all personal identification data from its servers, assigns each person a unique but anonymous identifier within the system, and employs a mix of network encryption methods. “We feel like that extra level of anonymization on the phone and on the network makes it really really hard to reverse-engineer,” he says.
Experts Are Concerned
Very little information is publicly available about the technical architecture behind the Voatz app. The company says it has done a security audit with three third-party security firms, but the results of that audit are not public. Sawhney says the audit contains proprietary and security information that can’t leak to the public. He invited any security researchers who want to see the audit to come to Boston and view it in Voatz’s secure room after signing an NDA.
This lack of transparency worries people who’ve been studying voting security for a long time. “In over a decade, multiple studies by the top experts in the field have concluded that internet voting cannot be made secure with current technology. VOATZ claims to have done something that is not doable with current technology, but WON’T TELL US HOW,” writes Stanford computer scientist and Verified Voting founder David Dill in an email to WIRED.
Voatz shared one white paper with WIRED, but it lacks the kind of information experts might expect—details on the system architecture, threat tests, how the system responds to specific attacks, verification from third parties. “In my opinion, anybody purporting to have securely and robustly applied blockchain technology to voting should have prepared a detailed analysis of how their system would respond to a long list of known threats that voting systems must respond to, and should have made their analysis public,” Carnegie Mellon computer scientist David Eckhardt wrote in an email.
Ideally, experts say, Voatz would have held a public testing period of its app before deploying it in a live election. Back in 2010, for example, Washington, DC, was developing an open-source system for online voting and invited the public to try to hack the system in a mock trial. Researchers from the University of Michigan were able to compromise the election server in 48 hours and change all the vote tallies, according to their report afterward. They also found evidence of foreign operatives already in the DC election server. This kind of testing is now considered best practice for any online voting implementation, according to Eckhardt. Voatz’s trials have been in real primaries.
“West Virginia is handing over its votes to a mystery box.”
DAVID DILL, STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Voatz’s use of blockchain itself does not inspire security experts, either, who dismissed it mostly as marketing. When asked for his thoughts on Voatz’s blockchain technology, University of Michigan computer scientist Alex Halderman, who was part of the group that threat-tested the DC voting portal in 2010, sent WIRED a recent XKCD cartoon about voting software. In the last panel, a stick figure with a microphone tells two software engineers, “They say they’ve fixed it with something called ‘blockchain.’” The engineers’ response? “Aaaaa!!!” “Whatever they’ve sold you, don’t touch it.” “Bury it in the desert.” “Wear gloves.”
“Voting from an app on a mobile phone is as bad an idea as voting online from a computer,” says Avi Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins, who has studied electronic voting systems since 1997. “The fact that someone is throwing around the blockchain buzzword does nothing to make this more secure. This is as bad an idea as there is.”
Blockchain has its own limitations, and it’s far from a perfect security solution for something like voting. First of all, information can be manipulated before it enters the chain. “In fact, there is an entire industry in viruses to manipulate cryptocurrency transactions before they enter the blockchain, and there is nothing to prevent the use of similar viruses to change the vote,” says Poorvi Vora, a computer scientist and election security expert at George Washington University.
She adds that if the blockchain is a permissioned version, as Voatz’s is, “It is possible for those maintaining the blockchain to collude to change the data, as well as to introduce denial of service type attacks.”
India-based tech support scams have taken a new turn, using phishing emails targeting Apple users to push them to a fake Apple website. This phishing attack also comes with a twist—it pops up a system dialog box to start a phone call. The intricacy of the phish and the formatting of the webpage could convince some users that their phone has been “locked for illegal activity” by Apple, luring users into soon clicking to complete the call.
Scammers are following the money. As more people use mobile devices as their primary or sole way of connecting to the Internet, phishing attacks and other scams have increasingly targeted mobile users. And since so much of people’s lives are tied to mobile devices, they’re particularly attractive targets for scammers and fraudsters.
“People are just more distracted when they’re using their mobile device and trust it more,” said Jeremy Richards, a threat intelligence researcher at the mobile security service provider Lookout. As a result, he said, phishing attacks against mobile devices have a higher likelihood of succeeding.
I attempted to bluff my way through a call to the “support” number to collect intelligence on the scam. The person answering the call, who identified himself as “Lance Roger from Apple Care,” became suspicious of me and hung up before I could get too far into the script.
Running down the scam
In a review of spam messages I’ve received this weekend, I found an email with the subject line, “[username], Critical alert for your account ID 7458.” Formatted to look like an official cloud account warning (but easily, by me at least, discernable as a phish), the email warned, “Sign-in attempt was blocked for your account [email address]. Someone just used your password to try to sign in to your profile.” A “Check Activity” button below was linked to a webpage on a compromised site for a men’s salon in southern India.
Meanwhile, an animated dialog box on the screen urged the target to make the call because their phone had been “locked due to illegal activity.” Script on the site scrapes data from the “user agent” data sent by the browser to determine what type of device the page was visited from:
window.defaultText='Your |%model%| has been locked due to detected illegal activity! Immediately call Apple Support to unlock it!';
While the site is still active, it is now marked as deceptive by Google and Apple. I passed technical details of the phishing site to an Apple security team member.
The scam is obviously targeted at the same sort of audience as Windows tech support scamswe’ve reported on. But it doesn’t take too much imagination to see how schemes like this could be used to target people at a specific company, customers of a particular bank, or users of a certain cloud platform to perform much more tailored social engineering attacks.
UPDATE: Microsoft on April 24 released the next preview build of Windows Server 2019, which includes RDSH. “Because of a bug, the RDSH role was missing in previous releases of Windows Server 2019 – this build fixes that,” the company said in a blog post announcing Build 17650.]
Remote Desktop Session Host is coming to the Windows Server 2019 preview and official release, Microsoft has confirmed.
The Remote Desktop Session Host (RDSH) role was not available in the first preview build of Windows Server 2019 that Microsoft released to the Insiders Program in March. At that time, experts said they did not expect the company to include RDSH when the operating system becomes generally available later this year.
In a statement to SearchVirtualDesktop this week, however, a company spokesperson said: “The RDSH role will be in the preview build available for Insiders soon. Windows Server 2019 will have the [Remote Desktop Services] roles like in Windows Server 2016.”
Mixed messages on Windows Server 2019 RDSH
Up until now, the messaging from Microsoft around RDSH in Windows Server 2019 caused confusion and frustration among some in the IT community. The company declined to officially comment on the future of RDSH in March, although some members of the Windows Server team posted on Twitter about the issue.
Jeff Woolsey, principal program manager for Windows Server, said in March that Remote Desktop Services (RDS) — the set of technologies that provide remote desktop and application access — was “not gone.” Last week, he reiterated that statement, and Scott Manchester, Microsoft group manager for RDS, said RDSH would be coming to the Windows Server 2019 preview in about two weeks.
IT administrators and industry observers wondered why Microsoft had not clarified earlier that Windows Server 2019 would indeed have the RDSH role.
“Microsoft was disconcertingly quiet about the feature omission,” said Jeff Wilhelm, CTO at Envision Technology Advisors, a solutions provider in Pawtucket, R.I. “There was much speculation.”
One possibility is that the code for the RDSH role simply wasn’t ready, and instead of releasing something incomplete or buggy in the preview, Microsoft removed it altogether.
Other speculation focused on a potential new multi-user Windows 10 feature. Microsoft has not commented on that, but it may continue to be a possibility for session-hosted desktops without RDSH.
The news that RDSH will be in the next Insider build should mean “a sigh of relief” for service providers and IT admins, Wilhelm said in an email.
“RDSH provides an important feature to users at many organizations, and the announced improvements, including HTML5 support, are a welcome addition,” he said.