PC PORTAL

Experienced. Trusted. Solutions.

IT Security

By

Post Coinhive, What’s Next for Cryptojacking?

Reading Time: ~2 min.

In late February, the notorious cryptojacking script engine called Coinhive abruptly announced the impending end to its service. The stated reason: it was no longer economically viable to run.

Coinhive became infamous quickly following its debut as an innovative javascript-based cryptomining script in 2018. While Coinhive maintained that its service was born out of good intentions—to offer website owners a means to generate revenue outside of hosting ads—it took cybercriminals no time at all to create cryptojacking attack campaigns. Cryptojacking became incredibly popular in 2018, infecting millions of sites (and cloud systems among the likes of Tesla) and netting criminals millions in cryptocurrency at the expense of their victims.

Source: Coinhive [dot] com

I honestly did not see this happening, but I do understand. It is reasonable to think that Coinhive didn’t intend for their creation to be abused by criminals. However, they have still kept 30 percent of ALL the earnings generated by their script, one that was often found running illegally on hijacked sites. Most of that profit came from illicit mining, which has earned Coinhive a lot of negative press.

Additionally, 2018 was a terrible year in terms of the US-dollar value of Monero (XMR), which means their service is significantly less profitable now, relative to what it once was. Combined with the fact that the XMR development team hard-forked the coin and changed the difficulty of the hashrate, this means Coinhive is making very little money from legitimate miners.

Coinhive created this service so legitimate domain owners could host their script and generate enough revenue to replace ads. Ads are annoying and I believe this innovation was aimed at attempting to fix that problem. But the ultimate result was a bunch of criminals breaking into other people’s domains and injecting them with Coinhive scripts that essentially stole from visitors to that domain. Without consent, millions of victims’ computers were subject to maximum hardware stress for extended periods of time, all so some criminals could make a few pennies worth of cryptocurrency per computer.

Would you continue to operate a startup business in which most of the money you earned was a cut of criminal activity—stealing from victims in the form of an increased power bill? Maybe a year ago, when the hashing difficulty was easier (you earned more XMR) and XMR was worth 10 times what it’s worth now, it might have been easier to “sleep at night” but now it probably just isn’t worth it.

Even before this news, there were plenty of other copy cats—Cryptoloot, JSEcoin, Deepminer, and others—so criminals have plenty of similar services to choose from. At the time of its shutdown, Coinhive had about around 60% share of all cryptojacking campaigns, though we saw this market dominance reach as high as 80% last year. I anticipate these other services stand to take larger shares of cryptojacking revenue now that the largest player has left. We might even see a new competitor service emerge to challenge for cryptojacking dominance.

Stay tuned to the Webroot blog for future developments in cryptojacking.

The post Post Coinhive, What’s Next for Cryptojacking? appeared first on Webroot Blog.

By

Cyber News Rundown: Georgia County Pays for Ransomware Threat

Reading Time: ~2 min.

Georgia County Pays Six Figure Ransom to Restore IT Systems

Following a ransomware attack earlier this month, officials in Jackson County, Georgia decided to pay a $400,000 ransom in order to obtain a decryption key and return their systems to normal operations. While it’s not normally recommended to pay ransoms, but instead to keep proper backups of critical files, the county decided that it would cost significantly more to restore the systems on their own. It is still unclear how the breach unfolded or how long the hackers had access to the network.

Michigan Healthcare Group Compromised

Sensitive information on over 600,000 patients was recently exposed after the Wolverine Solutions Group (WSG) suffered a data breach. The WSG initially suffered a ransomware attack in September of last year, and has been working to decrypt many of their systems since then. Due to Michigan’s lax laws regarding the announcement of a data breach, customers who may have been affected were contacted only within the last month.

Redirect Tags Found on Fortune 100 Sites

Hundreds of third-party redirect tags have been found hidden on the websites of Fortune 100 companies. These tags could allow attackers to access user data from any of the compromised sites and also degrade the performance of sites with multiple hidden tags. Many site owners even expressed concern over possible customer data loss, but did little to clear the tags from  their sites.

Asian Gaming Companies Infiltrated by Backdoors

Several Asia-based gaming companies have discovered hidden backdoors within main executables of some games attracting tens of thousands of players. Fortunately, after identifying the malicious code two of the three companies immediately pushed updates to their software, and the command & control servers for the backdoors were taken offline soon after. The backdoors appear to have originated from a malicious Chinese hacker group that has committed these types of attacks multiple times in recent years.

Info on 1.8 Million Women Found on Unprotected Chinese Database

An unprotected database was recently found which contains extremely sensitive data for nearly 1.8 million women in China. Amongst the personally identifying information was GPS coordinates, political affiliations, and even available video of specific individuals. Unfortunately, while the owners of this one database were successfully contacted, there are still thousands of similarly unprotected databases on Chinese networks.

The post Cyber News Rundown: Georgia County Pays for Ransomware Threat appeared first on Webroot Blog.

By

Five data protection tips from the DPC’s annual report

The first post-GDPR report from the Data Protection Commission makes for interesting reading. The data breach statistics understandably got plenty of coverage, but there were also many pointers for good data protection practice. I’ve identified five of them which I’ll outline in this blog.

Between 25 May and 31 December 2018, the DPC recorded 3,542 valid data security breaches. (For the record, the total number of breaches for the calendar year was 4,740.) This was a 70 per cent increase in reported valid data security breaches compared to 2017 (2,795), and a 56 per cent increase in public complaints compared to 2017.

1. Watch that auto-fill!

By far the largest single category was “unauthorised disclosures”, which was 3,134 out of the total. Delving further, we find that many of the complaints to the DPC relate to unauthorised disclosure of personal data in an electronic context. In other words, an employee at a company or public sector agency sent email containing personal data to the wrong recipient.

Data breaches in Ireland during 2018 and their causes

A case study on page 21 of the report illustrates this point: a data subject complained to the DPC after their web-chat with a Ryanair employee “was accidentally disclosed by Ryanair in an email to another individual who had also used the Ryanair web-chat service. The transcript of the webchat contained details of the complainant’s name and that of his partner, his email address, phone number and flight plans”.

It’s a common misconception that human error doesn’t count as a data breach, but in the eyes of GDPR, this isn’t the case. The most common reason for breaches like this comes from the auto-fill function in some software applications like email clients.

Where an organisation deals with high-risk data like healthcare information (because of the sensitivity involved), best practice is to disable auto-fill. I recommend this step to many of my clients. Many organisations don’t like doing this because it disrupts staff and makes their jobs a little bit harder. In my experience, employees soon get used to the inconvenience, while organisations greatly reduce their chances of a breach.

2. Encrypted messaging may not be OK

Another misconception I hear a lot is that it’s OK to use WhatsApp as a messaging tool because it’s encrypted. The case study on page 19 of the DPC report clarifies this position. A complainant claimed the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Egypt mission had shared his personal data with a third party (his employer) without his knowledge. A staff member at the mission was checking the validity of a document and the employer had no email address, so they sent a supporting document via WhatsApp.

In this case, the DPC “was satisfied that given the lack of any other secure means to contact the official in question, the transmission via WhatsApp was necessary to process the personal data for the purpose provided (visa eligibility)”.

My reading of this is that although the DPC ruled that WhatsApp was sufficient in this case, this was only because no other secure means of communication was available.

3. Do you need a DPO?

The report tells us that there were 900 Data Protection Officers appointed between 25 May and 31 December 2018. My eyes were immediately drawn to some text accompanying that graph (below). “During 2019, the DPC plans to undertake a programme of work communicating with relevant organisations regarding their obligations under the GDPR to designate a DPO.” This suggests to me that the DPC doesn’t believe there are enough DPOs, hence the outreach and awareness-raising efforts.

Notifications of new DPOs between 25 May and 31 December 2018

Private and public organisations will need to decide whether they should appoint a full-time DPO or avail of a service-model from a third-party data protection specialist.

4. A data protection policy is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card

Case study 9 from the report concerns an employee of a public-sector body who lost an unencrypted USB device. The device contained personal information belonging to a number of colleagues and service users. The data controller had policies and procedures in place that prohibited the removal and storage of personal data on unencrypted devices. But the DPC found that it “lacked the appropriate oversight and supervision necessary to ensure that its rules were complied with”.

The lesson I take from this is, “user error” is not a convenient shield for all data protection shortcomings. Many organisations expended effort last year in writing policies, and some think they’re covered from sanction because they did so. But unless they implement and enforce the policy – and provide training to staff about it – then it’s not enough.

5. Email marketing penalties may change

My final point is more of an observation than advice. Between 25 May and 31 December, the DPC prosecuted five entities for 30 offences involving email marketing. The reports detail those cases. A recurring theme is that the fines were mostly in the region of a couple of thousand euro. However, all of these cases began before GDPR was in force; since then, the DPC has the power to levy fines directly rather than going through the courts. This is an area I expect the DPC to address. Any organisation that took a calculated risk in the past because the fines were low should not expect this situation will continue.

There are plenty of other interesting points in the 104-page report, which is free to download here.

The post Five data protection tips from the DPC’s annual report appeared first on BH Consulting.

By

The Hidden Costs of ‘Free’ WiFi

Reading Time: ~3 min.

The True Cost of Free WiFi

Ease-of-access is a true double-edged sword. Like all powerful technologies, WiFi (public WiFi in particular) can be easily exploited. You may have read about attacks on publicly accessible WiFi networks, yet studies show that more than 70% of participants admit to accessing their personal email through public WiFi. WiFi vulnerabilities aren’t going away anytime soon—in 2017, the WPA2 security protocol used by essentially all modern WiFi networks was found to have a critical security flaw that allowed attackers to intercept passwords, e-mails and other data.

So what are the most commonly seen attacks via free WiFi, and how can we protect ourselves and our families? We turned to Tyler Moffitt, Webroot’s Sr. Threat Research Analyst, for answers.

Common Public WiFi Threats

“Criminals are either taking over a free WiFi hotspot at the router level, or creating a fake WiFi hotspot that’s meant to look like the legitimate one,” explained Moffitt. “The purpose of these man-in-the-middle attacks is to allow attackers to see and copy all of the traffic from the devices connected to the WiFi they control.”

Basic security protocols often aren’t enough to protect users’ data.

“Even with HTTPS sites where some data is encrypted, much of it is still readable,” Moffitt said. “Beyond just seeing where you surf and all the login credentials, criminals also have access to your device and can drop malicious payloads like ransomware.”

We are now seeing these attacks evolve, with cryptojacking becoming a particularly lucrative exploitation model for public WiFi networks. Cryptojacking is seen as a “low risk” attack as an attacker siphons a victim’s computer processing power, something far less likely to be detected and tracked than a traditional malware or ransomware attack. This was particularly notable in a 2017 cryptojacking attack that targeted Starbucks customers, which went uncorrected until Noah Dinkin—a tech company CEO—noticed a delay when connecting to the shop’s WiFi. Dinkin took it upon himself to investigate

It’s not just coffee shops that are being targeted. Airports, hotels, and convention centers are particularly prime targets due to their high  traffic. To demonstrate the power of a targeted attack in a conference setting, a security experiment was conducted at the 2017 RSA Conference. Surprisingly, even at an IT security conference, white hat hackers were able to trick 4,499 attendees into connecting to their rogue WiFi access point. The targeting of high-traffic, travel-focused locations means that many frequent travelers will leave themselves exposed at some point by connecting to public WiFi options—even though they may know better.

How to Detect the Threat

What are the telltale signs of a compromised system?

“With cryptomining, you will definitely notice that your machine will start acting slow, the fans will kick on full blast, and the CPU will increase to 100 percent, usually the browser being the culprit,” Moffitt said. “But there are few signs of a man-in-the-middle attack, where wireless network traffic is spied on for credentials and financial information. You won’t notice a thing, as your computer is just connecting to the router like normal. All information is being observed by someone in control of the router.”

With one recent attack in 2018 alone affecting 500,000 WiFi routers, the need for WiFi security has never been stronger.

Protecting Yourself on the Go

You can take steps to keep your data secure; the first of which is being sure that you have a VPN installed and protecting your devices. Nothing else will as effectively encrypt and shield your traffic on a public network.

“Using a VPN is the most impactful way to combat the dangers of free WiFi,” Moffitt said. “Think of VPN as a tunnel that shelters all of your information going in and out of your device. The traffic is encrypted so there is no way that criminals can read the information you are sending.”

“I use a VPN on my phone when I’m on the go,” he continued. “It’s really easy to use and you make sure all your data is private and not visible to prying eyes.”

But be sure to research any VPN before you commit to ensure it is trustworthy. It’s important to review the vendor’s privacy policy to make sure the VPN does not monitor or retain logs of your activities. Remember that, with security software and apps, you generally get what you pay for.

While free VPN apps will shield your data from the router you are connecting to, they may still spy on you and sell your information,” Moffitt said.

What does this all mean for you? If there is no such thing as free lunch, then there is definitely no such thing as free WiFi. The true cost just might be your online security and privacy.

Stay vigilant, secure all of your web traffic behind a trusted VPN, and check back here often for the latest in cybersecurity updates

The post The Hidden Costs of ‘Free’ WiFi appeared first on Webroot Blog.

By

Security roundup: March 2019

We round up interesting research and reporting about security and privacy from around the web. This month: ransomware repercussions, reporting cybercrime, vulnerability volume, everyone’s noticing privacy, and feeling GDPR’s impact.

Ransom vs ruin

Hypothetical question: how long would your business hold out before paying to make a ransomware infection go away? For Apex Human Capital Management, a US payroll software company with hundreds of customers, it was less than three days. Apex confirmed the incident, but didn’t say how much it paid or reveal which strain of ransomware was involved.

Interestingly, the story suggests that the decision to pay was a consensus between the company and two external security firms. This could be because the ransomware also encrypted data at Apex’s newly minted external disaster recovery site. Most security experts strongly advise against paying extortionists to remove ransomware. With that in mind, here’s our guide to preventing ransomware. We also recommend visiting NoMoreRansom.org, which has information about infections and free decryption tools.

Bonus extra salutary security lesson: while we’re on the subject of backup failure, a “catastrophic” attack wiped the primary and backup systems of the secure email provider VFE Systems. Effectively, the lack of backup put the company out of business. As Brian Honan noted in the SANS newsletter, this case shows the impact of badly designed disaster recovery procedures.

Ready to report

If you’ve had a genuine security incident – neat segue alert! – you’ll probably need to report it to someone. That entity might be your local CERT (computer emergency response team), to a regulator, or even law enforcement. (It’s called cybercrime for a reason, after all). Security researcher Bart Blaze has developed a template for reporting a cybercrime incident which you might find useful. It’s free to download at Peerlyst (sign-in required).

By definition, a security incident will involve someone deliberately or accidentally taking advantage of a gap in an organisation’s defences. Help Net Security recently carried an op-ed arguing that it’s worth accepting that your network will be infiltrated or compromised. The key to recovering faster involves a shift in mindset and strategy from focusing on prevention to resilience. You can read the piece here. At BH Consulting, we’re big believers in the concept of resilience in security. We’ve blogged about it several times over the past year, including posts like this.

In incident response and in many aspects of security, communication will play a key role. So another helpful resource is this primer on communicating security subjects with non-experts, courtesy of SANS’ Lenny Zeltser. It takes a “plain English” approach to the subject and includes other links to help security professionals improve their messaging. Similarly, this post from Raconteur looks at language as the key to improving collaboration between a CISO and the board.

Old flaws in not-so-new bottles

More than 80 per cent of enterprise IT systems have at least one flaw listed on the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) list. One in five systems have more than ten such unpatched vulnerabilities. Those are some of the headline findings in the 2019 Vulnerability Statistics Report from Irish security company Edgescan.

Edgescan concluded that the average window of exposure for critical web application vulnerabilities is 69 days. Per the report, an average enterprise takes around 69 days to patch a critical vulnerability in its applications and 65 days to patch the same in its infrastructure layers. High-risk and medium-risk vulnerabilities in enterprise applications take up to 83 days and 74 days respectively to patch.

SC Magazine’s take was that many of the problems in the report come from companies lacking full visibility of all their IT assets. The full Edgescan report has even more data and conclusions and is free to download here.

From a shrug to a shun

Privacy practitioners take note: consumer attitudes to security breaches appear to be shifting at last. PCI Pal, a payment security company, found that 62 per cent of Americans and 44 per cent of Britons claim they will stop spending with a brand for several months following a hack or breach. The reputational hit from a security incident could be greater than the cost of repair. In a related story, security journalist Zack Whittaker has taken issue with the hollow promise of websites everywhere. You know the one: “We take your privacy seriously.”

If you notice this notice…

Notifications of data breaches have increased since GDPR came into force. The European Commission has revealed that companies made more than 41,000 data breach notifications in the six-month period since May 25. Individuals or organisations made more than 95,000 complaints, mostly relating to telemarketing, promotional emails and video surveillance. Help Net Security has a good writeup of the findings here.

It was a similar story in Ireland, where the Data Protection Commission saw a 70 per cent increase in reported valid data security breaches, and a 56 per cent increase in public complaints compared to 2017. The summary data is here and the full 104-page report is free to download.

Meanwhile, Brave, the privacy-focused browser developer, argues that GDPR doesn’t make doing business harder for a small company. “In fact, if purpose limitation is enforced, GDPR levels the playing field versus large digital players,” said chief policy officer Johnny Ryan.

Interesting footnote: a US insurance company, Coalition, has begun offering GDPR-specific coverage. Dark Reading’s quotes a lawyer who said insurance might be effective for risk transference but it’s untested. Much will depend on the policy’s wording, the lawyer said.

Things we liked

Lisa Forte’s excellent post draws parallels between online radicalisation and cybercrime. MORE

Want to do some malware analysis? Here’s how to set up a Windows VM for it. MORE

You give apps personal information. Then they tell Facebook (PAYWALL). MORE

Ever wondered how cybercriminals turn their digital gains into cold, hard cash? MORE

This 190-second video explains cybercrime to a layperson without using computers. MORE

Blaming the user for security failings is a dereliction of responsibility, argues Ira Winkler. MORE

Tips for improving cyber risk management. MORE

Here’s what happens when you set up an IoT camera as a honeypot. MORE

The post Security roundup: March 2019 appeared first on BH Consulting.