I published the following diary on isc.sans.org: “Fileless Malicious PowerShell Sample“:
Pastebin.com remains one of my favourite place for hunting. I’m searching for juicy content and report finding in a Splunk dashboard:
Yesterday, I found an interesting pastie with a simple Windows CMD script… [Read more]
[The post [SANS ISC] Fileless Malicious PowerShell Sample has been first published on /dev/random]
I published the following diary on isc.sans.org: “Proactive Malicious Domain Search“:
In a previous diary, I presented a dashboard that I’m using to keep track of the DNS traffic on my networks. Tracking malicious domains is useful but what if you could, in a certain way, “predict” the upcoming domains that will be used to host phishing pages? Being a step ahead of the attackers is always good, right? Thanks to the CertStream service (provided by Cali Dog Security), you have access to a real-time certificate transparency log update stream… [Read more]
[The post [SANS ISC] Proactive Malicious Domain Search has been first published on /dev/random]
Based on my previous ISC SANS Diary, I updated the STIX feed to answer the requests made by some readers. The feed is now available in two formats:
There are updated every 2 hours. Enjoy!
[The post ISC Top-100 Malicious IP: STIX Feed Updated has been first published on /dev/random]
The Office 365 Threat Research team has seen an uptick in the use of Office exploits in attacks across various industry sectors in recent months. In this blog, we will review several of these exploits, including a group of Office moniker exploits that attackers have used in targeted as well as crimeware attacks. We will also describe the payloads associated with these exploits andhighlight our research into a particularly sophisticated piece of malware. Finally, we will demonstrate how Office 365 Advanced Threat Protection, Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection, and Windows Defender Exploit Guard protect customers from these exploits.
The discovery and public availability of a few Office exploits in the last six months led to these exploits gaining popularity among crimeware and targeted attackers alike. While crimeware attackers stick to payloads like ransomware and info stealers to attain financial gain or information theft, more sophisticated attackers clearly distinguish themselves by using advanced and multi-stage implants.
The Office 365 Threat Research team has been closely monitoring these attacks. The Microsoft Threat Intelligence Center (MSTIC) backs up our threat research with premium threat intelligence services that we use to correlate and track attacks and the threat actors behind them.
CVE-2017-0199 is a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in Microsoft Office allows a remote attacker to take control of a vulnerable machine if the user chooses to ignore protected view warning message. The vulnerability, which is a logic bug in the URL moniker that executes the HTA content using the htafile OLE object, was fixed in April 2017 security updates.
Figure 1. CVE-2017-0199 exploit code
Ever since FireEye blogged about the vulnerability, we have identified numerous attacks using this exploit. The original exploit was used in limited targeted attacks, but soon after, commodity crimeware started picking them up from the publicly available exploit generator toolkits. As shown in Figure 2, the creator and lastModifiedBy attributes help identify the use of such toolkits in generating exploit documents.
Figure 2. Exploit kit identifier
A slight variation of this exploit, this time in script moniker, was also released. When activated, this exploit can launch scriptlets (which consist of HTML code and script) hosted on a remote server. A proof-of-concept (PoC) made publicly available used a Microsoft PowerPoint Slideshow (PPSX) file to activate the script moniker and execute a remote code, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. PPSX activation for script moniker
The July 2017 security update from Microsoft included a fix for another variation of the CVE-2017-0199 exploit, CVE-2017-8570, which was discovered in URL moniker that, similar to HTA files, can launch scriptlets hosted on a remote server. Even though the vulnerability was not exploited as zero-day, the public availability of exploit toolkit created a wave of malicious PPSX attachments.
In September 2017, FireEye discovered another exploit used in targeted attacks. The CVE-2017-8759 exploit takes advantage of a code injection vulnerability in .Net Framework while parsing WSDL definition using SOAP moniker. The vulnerability was fixed in the September 2017 security update. The original exploit used an HTA file similar to CVE-2017-0199 to execute the attacker code in vulnerable machines. This exploit piqued our interest because it delivered one of the most complex and multiple VM-layered malware, FinFisher, whose techniques we discuss in the succeeding section.
The CVE-2017-8759 exploit soon got ported to PPSX file. Figure 4 below shows an example of the exploit.
Figure 4. CVE-2017-8759 exploit
Finally, onSeptember 28,2017, Qihoo 360 identified an RTF file in targeted attacks that exploited a memory corruption vulnerability in Microsoft Office. The vulnerability exists in the way Office parses objects within nested Office tags and was fixed in the October 2017 security update. The forced address space layout randomization (ASLR) prevented the exploit from running in Office 2013 and above. Figure 5 shows the nested tags from the original exploit that led to the bug.
Figure 5. CVE-2017-11826 exploit
Except for the memory, corruption exploit CVE-2017-11826, the exploits discussed in this blog pull the malware payload from remote locations, which could make it difficult for antivirus and sandboxes to reliably detect these exploits. Additionally, the public availability of scripts that generate exploit templates could make it challenging for incident responders.
As cited above, these exploits were used in both commodity and targeted attacks. Attackers attempt to bypass AV engine defenses using different obfuscation techniques. Here are some of the obfuscation techniques used in attacks that we recently analyzed:
In most of the attacks we analyzed, the exploits used PowerShell to download and execute malware payloads, which are usually crimeware samples like ransomware or info stealers.
Figure 6. PowerShell payload from the HTA file
However, every now and then, we stumble upon an interesting piece of malware that particularly catches our attention. One such malware is Wingbird, also known as FinFisher, which was used in one of the targeted attacks using the CVE-2017-8759 exploit.
Wingbird is an advanced piece of malware that shares characteristics with a government-grade commercial surveillance software, FinFisher. The activity group NEODYMIUM is known to use this malware in their attack campaigns.
The group behind WingBird has proven to be highly capable of using zero-day exploits in their attacks, as mentioned in our previous blog post on CVE-2017-8759. So far, we have seen the group use the exploits below in campaigns. These are mostly in line with the findings of Kaspersky Labs, which they documented in a blog:
The interesting part of this malware is the use of spaghetti code, multiple virtual machines, and lots of anti-debug and anti-analysis techniques. Due to the complexity of the threat, it could take analysts some time to completely unravel its functionality. Heres a summary of interesting tidbits, which we will expand in an upcoming detailed report on Wingbird.
The Wingbird malware goes through many stages of execution and has at least four VMs protecting the malware code. The first few stages are loaders that can probe if it is being run in virtualized or debugged environments. We found at least 12 different checks to evade the malwares execution in these environments. The most effective ones are:
The latter stages act as an installation program that drops the following files on the disk and installs the malware based on the startup command received from the previous stage:
In the sample we analyzed, the command was 3, which led the malware to create a global event, 0x0A7F1FFAB12BB2, and drop malware components under a folder located in %ProgramData%, or in the %APPDATA% folder. If the malware is running with restricted privileges, the persistence is achieved by setting the RUN key with the value below. The name of the key is taken from the encrypted configuration file.
HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run
Value: “{Random value taken from config file}”
With data: “C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\RUNDLL32.EXE C:\PROGRAMDATA\AUDITAPP\D3D9.DLL, CONTROL_RUN”
If the startup command is 2, the malware copies explorer.exe in the local installation directory, renames d3d9.dll to uxtheme.dll, and creates a new explorer.exe process that loads the malware DLL in memory using the DLL sideloading technique.
All of Wingbirds plugins are stored in its resource section and provide the malware various capabilities, including stealing sensitive information, spying on internet connection, or even diverting SSL connections.
Given the complex nature of the threat, we will provide more detailed analysis of the Wingbird protection mechanism and capabilities in an upcoming blog post.
Microsoft Office 365 Advanced Threat Protection blocks attacks that use these exploits based on the detection of malicious behaviors. Office 365 ATP helps secure mailboxes against email attack by blocking emails with unsafe attachments, malicious links, and linked-to files leveraging time-of-click protection. SecOps personnel can see ATP behavioral detections like below in Office 365s Threat Explorer page:
Figure 7. Office 365 ATP detection
Customers using Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection can also see multiple alerts raised based on the activities performed by the exploit on compromised machines. Windows Defender Advanced ATP is a post-breach solution that alerts SecOps personnel about hostile activity. Windows Defender ATP uses rich security data, advanced behavioral analytics, and machine learning to detect attacks.
Figure 8. Windows Defender ATP alert
In addition, enterprises can block malicious documents using Windows Defender Exploit Guard, which is part of the defense-in-depth protection in Windows 10 Fall Creators Update. The Attack Surface Reduction (ASR) feature in Windows Defender Exploit Guard uses a set of built-in intelligence that can block malicious behaviors observed in malicious documents. ASR rules can also be turned on to block malicious attachments from being run or launched from Microsoft Outlook or webmail (such as Gmail, Hotmail, or Yahoo!).
Figure 9. Windows Defender Exploit Guard detection
Crimeware and targeted activity groups are always on the lookout for attack vectors to infiltrate systems and networks and deploy different kinds of payloads, from commodity to advanced implants. These attack vectors include Office exploits, which we observed in multiple attack campaigns. The availability of open-source and off-the-shelf exploit builders helps drive this trend.
AtMicrosoft, we dont stop working to protect our customers mailboxes. Our global network of expert research teams continuously monitors the threat landscape for new malware campaigns, exploits, and attack methods. Our end-to-end defense suite includes Office 365 ATP, Windows Defender ATP, and Windows Defender Exploit Guard, among others, which work together to provide a holistic protection for individuals and enterprises.
I published the following diary on isc.sans.org: “Top-100 Malicious IP STIX Feed“.
Yesterday, we were contacted by one of our readers who asked if we provide a STIX feed of our blocked list or top-100 suspicious IP addresses. STIX means “Structured Threat Information eXpression” and enables organizations to share indicator of compromise (IOC) with peers in a consistent and machine readable manner… [Read more]
[The post [SANS ISC] Top-100 Malicious IP STIX Feed has been first published on /dev/random]
This post is authored by Patam Chantaruck, General Manager of Worldwide Software Asset Management & Compliance.
By 2021, worldwide cybercrime damage is expected to reach $6 trilliondouble what it cost businesses in 2015. Unapproved apps, unmanaged devices, poor password protection, and other security issues are leaving far too many organizations vulnerable to attack. And as organizations embrace digital transformation, it becomes increasingly urgent for them to increase control over their IT infrastructures and reduce security risks.
The question is: where to start?
Software asset management (SAM) is a set of proven IT practices that unites people, processes, and technology to control and optimize the use of software across an organization. SAM is designed to help you control costs, manage business and legal risks, optimize licensing investments, and align IT investments with business needs.
Effective SAM can identify discrepancies between software licenses owned and deployed, thus providing insights into software usage. These insights are then used to devise upgrade plans for each software release that will optimize license use, ensure worthwhile software investments, save money, reduce security risks associated with software piracy, and promote good corporate governance, including management effectiveness and transparency.
At Microsoft, we take SAM a step further with our cybersecurity engagement. This comprehensive analysis of your cybersecurity infrastructureincluding your current software deployment, usage, and licensing datahelps to ensure that you have the right processes in place to minimize cyber-risk. Through this engagement we also provide prescriptive cybersecurity guidance and best practices, freeing your organization to focus on innovation instead of protection.
A Microsoft SAM cybersecurity engagement will help you:
IDC has identified SAM as a key component to securing infrastructure and battling cyberattacks and predicts that an increasing number of organizations will rely on SAM practices to reduce risks. Below is a direct quote from The Business Value of Software Asset Management:
Cyberattacks often take advantage of the high vulnerability of end-of-life (EOL) IT systems and/or software that have ceased to receive product updates and security patches from vendor sources. Understanding risk impact is challenging when there is limited or no understanding of where the assets reside and precisely how the assets support the business. To that end, SAM initiatives enable organizations to quickly discover how many devices and applications are in the environment, along with their location and their warranty status, which can significantly reduce unnecessary cost, waste, and cybersecurity risks. Establishing a comprehensive asset management program provides a common source of record, which enables IT to carry out more timely security patches and identify security threats sooner as well as better respond to software audits. Therefore, asset management should be viewed holistically as an essential component of an effective IT infrastructure, service, and cybersecurity management program.
Here is one example of how Microsoft SAM for cybersecurity is helping customers around the world.
Ranking as the fourth largest sugar manufacturer in the world, Mitr Phol Group wanted to achieve effective SAM and reduce security risks. They moved away from decentralized IT systems to a more consolidated structure, centralizing the organizations software deployments and management. To further increase the value of their established SAM processes, they became the first company in Thailand to conduct SAM for cybersecurity. As a result, they were able to identify and remediate system vulnerabilities and mitigate security risks and threat impacts while protecting their sensitive data.
SAM should be a key part of your security strategy. And Microsoft can help. To learn more, visit www.microsoft.com/sam to hear how other customers are benefiting. Find a SAM partner near you to help you establish Software Asset Management practice.
I published the following diary on isc.sans.org: “Suspicious Domains Tracking Dashboard“.
Domain names remain a gold mine to investigate security incidents or to prevent some malicious activity to occur on your network (example by using a DNS firewall). The ISC has also a page dedicated to domain names. But how can we detect potentially malicious DNS activity if domains are not (yet) present in a blacklist? The typical case is DGA’s of Domain Generation Algorithm used by some malware families… [Read more]
[The post [SANS ISC] Suspicious Domains Tracking Dashboard has been first published on /dev/random]
I published the following diary on isc.sans.org: “If you want something done right, do it yourself!“.
Another day, another malicious document! I like to discover how the bad guys are creative to write new pieces of malicious code. Yesterday, I found another interesting sample. It’s always the same story, a malicious document is delivered by email. The document was called ‘Saudi Declare war Labenon.doc’ (interesting name by the way!). According to VT, it is already flagged as malicious by many antiviruses… [Read more]
[The post [SANS ISC] If you want something done right, do it yourself! has been first published on /dev/random]
I published the following diary on isc.sans.org: “Keep An Eye on your Root Certificates“.
A few times a year, we can read in the news that a rogue root certificate was installed without the user consent. The latest story that pops up in my mind is the Savitech audio drivers which silently installs a root certificate. The risks associated with this kind of behaviour are multiple, the most important remains performing MitM attacks. New root certificates are not always the result of an attack or infection by a malware. Corporate end-points might also get new root certificates… [Read more]
[The post [SANS ISC] Keep An Eye on your Root Certificates has been first published on /dev/random]
Ten years ago, I walked onto Microsofts Redmond campus to take a role on a team that partnered with governments and CERTs on cybersecurity. Id just left a meaningful career in US federal government service because I thought it would be fascinating to experience first-hand the security challenges and innovation from the perspective of the IT industry, especially within Microsoft, given its presence around the US federal government. I fully expected to spend a year or two in Microsoft and then resume my federal career with useful IT industry perspectives on security. Two days after I started, Popular Sciences annual Ten worst jobs in science survey came out, and I was surprised to see Microsoft Security Grunt in sixth place. Though the article was tongue-in-cheek, saluting those who take on tough challenges, the fact that we made this ignominious list certainly made me wonder if Id made a huge mistake.
I spent much of my first few years hearing from government and enterprise executives that Microsoft was part of the security problem. Working with so many hard-working engineers, researchers, security architects, threat hunters, and developers trying to tackle these increasingly complex challenges, I disagreed. But, we all recognized that we needed to do more to defend the ecosystem, and to better articulate our efforts. Wed been investing in security well before 2007, notably with the Trustworthy Computing Initiative and Security Development Lifecycle, and we continue to invest heavily in technologies and people – we now employ over 3,500 people in security across the company. I rarely hear anymore that we are perceived as a security liability, but our work isnt done. Ten years later, Im still here, busier than ever, delaying my long-expected return to federal service, helping enterprise CISOs secure their environments, their users, and their data.
Is it possible, however, that our industrys investments in security have created another problem – that of complexity? Have we innovated our way into a more challenging situation? My fellow security advisors at Microsoft have shared customer frustrations over the growing security vendor presence in their environments. While these different technologies may solve specific requirements, in doing so, they create a management headache. Twice this week in Redmond, CISOs from large manufacturers challenged me to help them better understand security capabilities they already owned from Microsoft, but werent aware of. They sought to use this discovery process to identify opportunities to rationalize their security vendor presence. As one CISO said, Just help me simplify all of this.
There is a large ecosystem of very capable and innovative professionals delivering solutions into a vibrant and crowded security marketplace. With all of this IP, how can we best help CISOs use important innovation while reducing complexity in their environments? And, can we help them maximize value from their investments without sacrificing security and performance?
Large enterprises may employ up to 100 vendors technologies to handle different security functions. Different vendors may handle identity and access management, data loss prevention, key management, service management, cloud application security, and so on. Many companies are now turning to machine learning and user behavior technologies. Many claim best of breed or best in class, capabilities and there is impressive innovation in the marketplace. Recognizing this, we have made acquisition a part of Microsofts security strategy – since 2013 weve acquired companies like Aorato, Secure Islands, Adallom, and most recently Hexadite.
Microsofts experience as a large global enterprise is similar to our enterprise customers. Weve been working to rationalize the 100+ different security providers in our infrastructure to help us better manage our external dependencies and more efficiently manage budgets. Weve been moving toward a default policy of Microsoft first security technology where possible in our environment. Doing so helps us standardize on newer and familiar technologies that complement each other.
That said, whether we build or buy, our focus is to deliver an overall best in suite approach to help customers deploy, maintain, monitor, and protect our enterprise products and services as securely as possible. We are investing heavily in the Intelligent Security Graph. It leverages our vast security intelligence, connects and correlates information, and uses advanced analytics to help detect and respond to threats faster. If you are already working with Microsoft to advance your productivity and collaboration needs by deploying Windows 10, Office 365, Azure, or other core enterprise services, you should make better use of these investments and reduce dependency on third-party solutions by taking advantage of built-in monitoring and detection capabilities in these solutions. A best-of-suite approach also lowers the costs and complexity of administering a security program, e.g. making vendor assessments and procurement easier, reducing training and learning curves, and standardizing on common dashboards.
Reducing complexity also requires that we make our security technologies easy to acquire and use. Here are some interesting examples of how our various offerings connect to each other and have built-in capabilities:
Thousands of companies around the world are innovating, competing, and partnering to defeat adversaries and to secure the computing ecosystem. No single company can do it all. But by making it as convenient as possible for you to acquire and deploy technologies that integrate, communicate and complement each other, we believe we can offer a best-of-suite benefit to help secure users, devices, apps, data, and infrastructure. Visit https://www.microsoft.com/secure to learn about our solutions and reach out to your local Microsoft representative to learn more about compelling security technologies that you may already own. For additional information, and to stay on top of our investments in security, bookmark this Microsoft Secure blog.
Mark McIntyre, CISSP, is an Executive Security Advisor (ESA) in the Microsoft Enterprise and Cybersecurity Group. Mark works with global public sector and commercial enterprises, helping them transform their businesses while protecting data and assets by moving securely to the Cloud. As an ESA, Mark supports CISOs and their teams with cybersecurity reviews and planning. He also helps them understand Microsofts perspectives on the evolving cyber threat landscape and how Microsoft defends its enterprise, employees and users around the world.
I published the following diary on isc.sans.org: “Interesting VBA Dropper“.
Here is another sample that I found in my spam trap. The technique to infect the victim’s computer is interesting. I captured a mail with a malicious RTF document (SHA256: c247929d3f5c82247db9102d2dec28c27f73dc0824f8b386f92aad1a22fd8edd) that exploits the OLE2Link vulnerability (CVE-2017-0199). Once opened, the document fetches the following URL… [Read more]
[The post [SANS ISC] Interesting VBA Dropper has been first published on /dev/random]
This post is authored by Michael Melone, Principal Cybersecurity Consultant, Enterprise Cybersecurity Group.
Earlier this year, the world experienced a new and highly-destructive type of ransomware. The novel aspects of WannaCry and Petya were not skills as ransomware, but the combination of commonplace ransomware tactics paired with worm capability to improve propagation.
WannaCry achieved its saturation primarily through exploiting a discovered and patched vulnerability in a common Windows service. The vulnerability (MS17-010) impacted the Windows Server service which enables communication between computers using the SMB protocol. Machines infected by WannaCry propagate by connecting to a nearby unpatched machine, performing the exploit, and executing the malware. Execution of the exploit did not require authentication, thus enabling infection of any unpatched machine.
Petya took this worming functionality one step further and additionally introduced credential theft and impersonation as a form of worming capability. These techniques target single sign-on technologies, such as traditional domain membership. This added capability specifically targeted enterprise environments and enabled the malware to use a single unpatched endpoint to springboard into the network, then used active sessions on the machine to infect other machines regardless of patch level. To an enterprise, a single unpatched endpoint paired with poor credential hygiene could be used to enable propagation throughout the enterprise.
Most impersonation and credential theft attacks are possible only when malware obtains local administrator or equivalent authorization to the operating system. For Petya, this would mean successful exploitation of MS17-010, or running under the context of a user with local administrator authorization.
To a hacker, an infected or stolen identity is measurable in two ways: the breadth of computers that trust and grant authorization to the account and the level of authorization granted upon successful authentication. Since encryption can be performed by any user account, ransomware benefits most when it infects an account which can convey write authorization to a large amount of data.
In most cases (thus far), the data sought out by ransomware has been either local files or those accessible over a network attached share data which can be accessed by the malware using out-of-the-box operating system interfaces. As such, data encrypted by most ransomware includes files in the users profile, home directory, or on shared directories where the user has access and write authorization.
In the case of WannaCry, the identity used by the ransomware was SYSTEM an effectively unrestricted account from an authorization perspective. Running as SYSTEM, WannaCry had authorization to encrypt any file on the infected machine.
Petyas encryption mechanism required the ability to overwrite the boot sector of the hard drive to invoke its encryption mechanism. The malware then creates a scheduled task to restart the machine at least 10 minutes later to perform the encryption. The offline encryption mechanism prevented destruction of network files by Petya.
Pivoting our focus to the worm aspect of these ransomware variants, the value of an infected host to a hacker is measurable in two ways: the quantity of newly accessible targets resulting from infection and the data which now becomes available because of the infection. Malware with worming capability focuses on widespread propagation, thus machines which can access new targets are highly valuable.
To both WannaCry and Petya, a newly infected system offered a means to access previously inaccessible machines. For WannaCry, any potential new targets needed to be vulnerable to MS17-010. Vulnerability gave both malware variants SYSTEM-level authority, thus enabling successful execution of their payload.
Additionally, in the case of Petya, any machine having reusable credentials in memory furthered its ability to propagate. Petya searches for active sessions on an infected machine and tries to use the session to infect machines which may not have been vulnerable to MS17-010. As a result, a single vulnerable endpoint may expose a reusable administrative credential usable to infect potential targets which grant that credential a necessary level of authorization.
To defend against a ransomware application with worm capability we need to target the following areas:
Many of the risks associated with ransomware and worm malware can be alleviated through systems design. Referring to our now codified list of vulnerabilities, we know that our solution must:
Windows 10 offers a new management model that differs significantly from traditional domain joined machines. Azure Active Directory joined machines can still convey identity to organizational resources; however, the machine itself does not trust domain credentials. This design prevents reusable accounts from exposure to workstations, thus protecting the confidentiality of the credential. Additionally, this limits the impact of a compromised domain account since Azure AD joined machines will not trust the identity.
Another benefit of Windows 10 with Azure AD is the ability to move workstations outside of the firewall, thus reducing the number of potential targets once infection occurs. Moving endpoints outside the firewall reduces the impact of any workstation threat by reducing the benefits normally gained by compromising a machine within the corporate firewall. As a result, this design exposes fewer server ports to potentially compromised endpoints, thus limiting the attack surface and reducing the likelihood of worm propagation.
Moving workstations outside of the firewall offers added security for the workstation as well. Migrating to a BYOD architecture can enable a more stringent client firewall policy, which in turn reduces the number of services exposed to other hosts, and thus improves the machines defense against worms and other inbound attacks.
Additionally, most organizations use many laptops which often connect from untrusted locations outside the firewall. While outside of the firewall, these machines can connect to untrusted sources, become infected, then bring the infection inside the firewall next time it is able to connect to the internal network. This causes confusion when trying to identify the initial infection during an incident response, and potentially exposes the internal network to unnecessary risk.
Migrating data from traditional file shares into a solution such as SharePoint or OneDrive can limit the impact of a ransomware attack. Data stored in these technologies can enforce version control, thus potentially simplifying recovery. To further protect this data, limit the number of SharePoint users who had administrative authority to the site to prevent emptying of the recycle bin.
When an attack occurs, it is crucial to ensure ransomware cannot destroy data backups. Although convenient, online data backups may be subject to destruction during an attack. Depending on design, an online backup solution may trust a stolen reusable single sign-on credential to enable deletion or encryption of backup data. If this occurs, backups may be rendered unusable during the attack.
To prevent against this, consider Azure Cloud Backup a secure off-site backup solution. Azure Cloud Backup is managed through the Azure Portal which can be configured to require separate authentication, to include multi-factor authentication. Volumes used to store backup data reside in Azure and cannot be initialized or overwritten using on-premises domain credentials.
Windows 10 and BYOD architecture offers significant defense against a variety of cyberattacks, to include worms and ransomware. This article covers only some of the protections that Windows 10 offers against credential theft, bootkits, rootkits, and other malware techniques employed by this class of highly destructive malware.
To better defend your organization against future malware outbreaks:
I published the following diary on isc.sans.org: “Simple Analysis of an Obfuscated JAR File“.
Yesterday, I found in my spam trap a file named ‘0.19238000 1509447305.zip’ (SHA256: 7bddf3bf47293b4ad8ae64b8b770e0805402b487a4d025e31ef586e9a52add91). The ZIP archive contained a Java archive named ‘0.19238000 1509447305.jar’ (SHA256: b161c7c4b1e6750fce4ed381c0a6a2595a4d20c3b1bdb756a78b78ead0a92ce4). The file had a score of 0/61 in VT and looks to be a nice candidate for a quick analysis. .jar files are ZIP archives that contain compiled Java classes and a Manifest file that points to the initial class to load. Let’s decompile the classes. To achieve this, I’m using a small Docker container… [Read more]
[The post [SANS ISC] Simple Analysis of an Obfuscated JAR File has been first published on /dev/random]
