This is part one of a three-part series, written by an independent guest blogger. Please keep an eye out for the next blog in this series.

Remote work is the new reality for companies of all sizes and across every industry.  As the majority of employees now perform their job functions outside the technology ecosystem of their local office, the cybersecurity landscape has evolved with the adoption of terms such as Zero Trust and Secure Services Edge (SSE).  To accommodate this new landscape, organizations have undergone fundamental changes to allow employees to work from anywhere, using any device, and many times at the expense of data security. As a result, a paradigm shift has occurred that demonstrates employees are increasingly dependent on their smartphones and tablets which have jointly become the new epicenter of endpoint security.

This next-level dependence on mobile devices is consistent across the remote work environment.  There are countless anecdotes about the new reality of hybrid work.  For example, workers using personal tablets to access sensitive data via SaaS apps, or taking a work Zoom call while waiting in the school pickup line.   The constant for each of these stories has been the overwhelming preference to use whatever device is available to complete the task at hand. Therefore, it is extremely logical that bad actors have pivoted to mobile to launch their attacks given the overwhelming use of non-traditional endpoints to send email, edit spreadsheets, update CRMs and craft presentations.  

4.32B Active Mobile Internet Users

56.89% Mobile Internet Traffic as Share of Total Global Online Traffic

Although the experience paradigm quickly changed with the adoption of remote work, the perception of mobile devices as a risk vector has been more gradual for most customers. In fact, Gartner estimates that only 30% of enterprise customers currently employ a mobile threat detection solution.  Many organizations still assume that their UEM solution provides security or that iOS devices are already safe enough. The most shocking feedback from customers indicates that they historically haven’t seen attacks on mobile, so they have no reason to worry about it.  Given this mindset, it’s again no surprise that hackers have trained their focus on mobile as their primary attack vector and entry point to harvest user credentials.

  • 16.1 % of Enterprise Devices Encountered one (or more) Phishing or Malicious links in 3Q2021 globally
  • 51.2% of Personal Devices Encountered one (or more) Phishing or Malicious links in 3Q2021 globally.

What this mindset reveals is a certain naivete from many organizations, regardless of size or industry, that believe mobile devices do not present significant risk and therefore don’t need to be considered in their data security and compliance strategies. This oversight points to two separate tenants that must be addressed when protecting sensitive data via mobile devices:

Endpoint security is an absolute requirement to protect sensitive data and it includes laptops, desktops, and mobile devices

There isn’t a single business that would issue a laptop to an employee without some version of anti-virus or anti-malware security installed yet most mobile devices have no such protections.  The primary explanation for this is that organizations think mobile device management is the same as mobile endpoint security.  While device management tools are capable of locking or wiping a device, they lack the vast majority of capabilities necessary to proactively detect threats. Without visibility into threats like mobile phishing, malicious network connections, or advanced surveillanceware like Pegasus, device management falls far short of providing the necessary capabilities for true mobile security.

Even cybersecurity thought leaders sometimes overlook the reality of cyber-attacks on mobile.  In a recent blog, “5 Endpoint Attacks Your Antivirus Won’t Catch”, the entire story was exclusive to the impact on traditional endpoints even though rootkits and ransomware are just as likely to occur on mobile. 

Traditional security tools do not inherently protect mobile devices

Given the architectural differences that exist between mobile operating systems (iOS/Android) and traditional endpoint OS (MacOS, Windows, Linux, etc.), the methods for securing them are vastly different.  These differences inhibit traditional endpoint security tools, which are not purpose-built for mobile, from providing the right level of protection. 

This is especially true when talking about the leading EPP/EDR vendors such as Carbon Black, SentinelOne and Crowdstrike.  Their core functionality is exclusive to traditional endpoints, although the inclusion of mobile security elements to their solutions is trending.  We’re seeing strategic partnerships emerge and it’s expected that the mobile security and traditional endpoint security ecosystems will continue to merge as customers look to consolidate vendors. 

What’s more is that there are so many ways that users interact with their smartphones and tablets that are unique to these devices. For example, a secure email gateway solution can’t protect against phishing attacks delivered via SMS or QR codes. Also, can you identify all of your devices (managed and unmanaged) that are subject to the latest OS vulnerability that was just identified and needs to be patched immediately?  Did one of your engineers just fall victim to a man-in-the-middle attack when they connected to a malicious WiFi network at a random coffee shop?  These are just some of the examples of the threats and vulnerabilities that can only be mitigated with the use of a mobile endpoint security tool, dedicated to protecting mobile endpoints.

The acceleration of remote work and the “always-on” productivity that's expected has shifted your employees’ preferences for the devices they use to get work done.   Reading email, sending an SMS rather than leaving a voicemail (who still uses voicemail?), and the fact that just about every work-related application now resides in the cloud has changed how business is transacted.  This pivot to mobile has already occurred. It’s well past time that companies acknowledge this fact and update their endpoint security posture to include mobile devices.  

If you would like to learn more or are interested in a Mobile Security Risk Assessment to provide visibility into the threat landscape of your existing mobile fleet, please click here or contact your local AT&T sales team.           

The post Endpoint security and remote work appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

This blog was written by an independent guest blogger.

APIs are a crucial tool in today’s business environment. Allowing applications to interact and exchange data and services means that companies can provide an ever-greater range of features and functionalities to their clients quickly and easily. So, it is no wonder that a quarter of businesses report that APIs account for at least 10% of their total revenue – a number that will only increase in coming years.

But for all their benefits, APIs also create security concerns for organizations. In one survey of API users, 91% reported an API-related security incident. Unfortunately, API security efforts within many organizations are simply not sufficient, exposing the company and its clients to attack and loss of sensitive data. 

Every business that uses APIs, indeed every business even thinking about using APIs, should have a solid API security strategy in place. This article reviews API vulnerabilities and outlines steps organizations should take to secure their APIs.

The importance of APIs

APIs provide numerous benefits for both businesses and their customers. At its most basic level, an API is simply a tool that allows an application to communicate with external applications and data sources. Developers can leverage these connections to create new applications, functionalities, and analytical tools, speeding the pace of business innovation and constantly improving user experience.

APIs facilitate everything from online payment systems and banking to travel aggregator services, social media, and media streaming services. They are also an important part of the rapidly expanding cryptocurrency world. 

Crypto developers use APIs to build decentralized applications (DApps) on blockchains. APIs also interact with the smart contracts that control everything from transactions to the formation of decentralized autonomous organizations (blockchain governance structures known colloquially as DAOs).

APIs also ease data sharing among corporate applications, reducing the need for repetitive and wasteful data entry. And they are an essential part of automating many business functions. And in a business environment that increasingly includes remote workers, they help businesses build effective collaboration tools to ensure that their teams continue to work well, even when virtual.

Businesses can also use APIs for advanced competitive intelligence programs. Not only can they simplify the aggregation of competitive data from a range of sources, but they are integral in building effective data analytics and display tools. 

They can even be used to continuously track changes to your competitors’ websites so you can always be on top of the latest innovations in your industry (e.g., with tools like Visualping).  

API security vulnerabilities

Because APIs are such a dominant part of the business landscape, cyber attackers have targeted them with growing frequency. Gartner predicted that API attacks would be the most common attack vector this year, and that prediction is rapidly proving true.

Some of the world’s largest and most sophisticated companies have suffered widely publicized data breaches resulting from API attacks. And as businesses have painfully learned, hackers have many different ways to attack APIs.

Targeting code vulnerabilities

As with any software, APIs are only as good as their underlying code. Poor coding of APIs creates inherent vulnerabilities that hackers are only too happy to exploit.

DDoS attacks

Distributed denial of service attacks, which attempt to render APIs completely unavailable to users by overwhelming them with traffic, are rapidly increasing in frequency. One reason is the increase in e-commerce in recent years. DDoS attacks can prevent access to inventories by adding stock to carts that they then never check out (denial of inventory attack).

Failed authentication and access control policies

It is crucial for organizations to strictly control API access and require strong authentication. Company API security policies should include role-based access control, least privilege, and zero trust policies to limit opportunities for hackers to interfere with APIs using compromised credentials. These policies will also help restrict how far a successful hacker can get within company systems using compromised credentials, especially if companies strictly limit granting wide-ranging privileges to users.

Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks 

Hackers can insert themselves between users and APIs by intercepting and changing the communications between them. Using MitM attacks, hackers can gain access to sensitive user accounts and information, which they can use to exfiltrate company data. The danger of MitM attacks increases when companies do not apply transport layer security (TLS) in their APIs.

Securing your APIs

So what steps do businesses need to take to have the best security possible when using APIs? 

Build an API inventory

The first step is to know what APIs you have and how you use them. A complete API inventory, including whether you have multiple versions of a given API, allows you to minimize your overall attack surface by eliminating unused or outdated APIs. An API inventory also helps you prioritize your security efforts, directing resources towards your most critical systems.

Create effective API security policies

API vulnerabilities start well before a hacker ever enters the picture. Unfortunately, many companies don’t adequately protect their API assets because they don’t have API security policies in place, or if they do, those policies are ineffective. Organizations must apply strong security policies to their API usage and routinely enforce and update those policies.

Use strong authentication methods and encryption

In addition to having policies that limit who can access your APIs, you need to verify the identity of the people and services accessing them. Authentication methods such as API key or OAuth authentication harden your APIs against attacks and reduce your attack surface.

Limit data exposure

The less data transferred through an API, the less there is for an attacker to intercept or exfiltrate. Therefore, keep data sharing across an API to what is absolutely necessary. Not only do you minimize potential breach issues, but the organization will also be in a better position concerning compliance issues.

Conclusion

APIs will only continue to grow in popularity and utility. And they will also continue to be popular attack targets. So, make sure you are taking all the necessary steps to secure your APIs against attackers. 

The post How and why you should secure APIs appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

 “Approximately 64% of global CISOs were hired from another company” according to the 2021 MH Global CISO Research Report. The reasons are because of talent shortages, the role is still new to some companies, and companies have not created a succession plan to support internal promotions.

To overcome these challenges, companies can look to Virtual Chief Information Security Officer (vCISO) or a vCISO as a service provider. Companies should consider both the vCISO candidate and the additional “as a service” capabilities that the Provider brings to support the security program. This article covers what to look for when selecting a vCISO and vCISO as a service provider.

What to look for with the candidate

Businesses will want to align their CISO requirements with the skillset and background of the candidate vCISO. For example, the business may want a vCISO with security architecture experience when they are deploying a managed firewall service. Alternatively, if the business has a need to build a Security Operations Center (SOC) then a vCISO with SOC deployment experience might be preferred. While experience in a focused area is beneficial, a vCISO will have the following fundamental skills that align and preferably expand past the business security needs.

  • Provide executive-level advisory and presentations.
  • Create and track a risk register with identified cybersecurity gaps.
  • Ability to develop, implement, and manage cybersecurity roadmap.
  • Run tabletop exercises to identify business unit priorities and create alignment.
  • Respond to third-party due diligence requests.
  • Hardware and software assets as well as data identification and risk analysis.
  • Reporting on metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs).
  • Deliver and report on vulnerability and penetration testing.
  • Oversee reporting, steering, and committee meetings.
  • Review and update incident response plans.
  • Identification, mitigation, and remediation activities for security related events.
  • Policy and procedure development, updating and creation.
  • Budget and planning development.
  • Develop and run security awareness training.

What to look for in a vCISO as a service provider

vCISO as a service expands the vCISO from an individual contributor into a team that is engaged to lead a program or initiative. For example, instead of having a vCISO with SOC building experience, the entire team is brought in to create the program and build the SOC. Building a relationship with the Provider helps businesses quickly engage resources to support these larger types of initiatives. As the relationship grows, the business builds trust and expands into a valuable partnership. Below are items to consider when trying to find the right trusted partner.

  • Access to a team of experts for a specific topic or concern through collaboration and sharing between the provider’s internal vCISO committee.
  • Provide a diverse group of professionals that allow the customer to get a vCISO who can quickly engage within the customer’s timeline and budget.
  • Leverage the diverse experience gained by the provider because of their engagements in different industries and business sizes from small business to global enterprise.
  • Strategy frameworks and resources to build a security program and help create a succession plan.
  • Meet the customer timelines and budgets through different levels of retainers and engagement models.
  • Addressing security topics and strategy objectively while providing unbiased recommendations to security challenges.
  • Coverage area to support regional, national, and global footprints.

The vCISO role is a flexible model to help customers manage cost, enhance quality of their deliverables, and reduce the time it takes to deliver on security activities. Engagements can be for a specific project, to provide coverage while a permanent CISO is identified, or to take on the role full-time. These benefits strengthen the relationship between customers and service provider which in turn, create the trusted partnership that is needed for stronger security.

The post What to look for in a vCISO as a service appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

Executive summary

  • 2022 has experienced an increase in the number of wiper variants targeting Ukrainian entities.
  • This blog post looks to explain how wipers work, what makes them so effective and provides a short overview of the most recent samples that appeared in the eastern Europe geopolitical conflict.

How does wiper malware work?

Wiper’s main objective is to destroy data from any storage device and make the information unavailable (T1485). There are two ways of removing files, logical and physical.

Logical file removal is the most common way of erasing a file, performed by users daily when a file is sent to (and emptied from) the Recycle bin, or when it is removed with the command line or terminal with the commands del/rm. This action deletes the pointer to the file but not the file data, making it recoverable with forensic tools as long as the Operative System does not write any other file in the same physical location.

However, malware wipers aim to make the data irrecoverable, so they tend to remove the data from the physical level of the disk. The most effective way to remove the data/file is by overwriting the specific physical location with other data (usually a repeated byte like 0xFF). This process usually involves writing to disk several Gigabytes (or Terabytes) of data and can be time consuming. For this reason, in addition to destroying the data, many wipers first destroy two special files in the system:

  • The Master Boot Record (MBR), which is used during the boot process to identify where the Operative System is stored in the disk. By replacing the MBR, the boot process crashes, making the files inaccessible unless forensic methodologies are used.
  • The Master File Table (MFT) is exclusive to NTFS file systems, contains the physical location of files in the drive as well as logical and physical size and any associated metadata. If big files need to be stored in the drive, and cannot use consecutive blocks, these files will have to be fragmented in the disk. The MFT holds the information of where each fragment is stored. Removing the MFT will require the use of forensic tools to recover small files, and basically prevents recovery of fragmented files since the link between fragments is lost.

The main difference between wipers and ransomware is that it’s impossible to retrieve the impacted information after a wiper attack. Attackers using wipers do not usually target financial reward but intend to disrupt the victim’s operations as much as possible. Ransomware operators aim to get a payment in exchange for the key to decrypt the user’s data.

With both wiper and ransomware attacks, the victim depends on their back up system to recover after an attack. However, even some wiper attacks carry ransom notes requesting a payment to recover the data. It is important that the victim properly identifies the attack they've suffered, or they may pay the ransom without any chance of retrieving the lost data.

In the last month and a half, since the war started in Eastern Europe, several wipers have been used in parallel with DDoS attacks (T1499) to keep financial institutions and government organizations, mainly Ukrainian, inaccessible for extended periods of time. Some of the wipers observed in this timeframe have been: WhisperKill, HermeticWiper, IsaacWiper, CaddyWiper, DoubleZero Wiper and AcidRain.

Most recent wiper examples

WhisperKill

On January 14, 2022, the Ukrainian government experienced a coordinated attack on 22 of their government agencies, defacing their websites. Almost all the compromised websites were developed by the same Ukranian IT company, Kitsoft, and all of them were built on OctoberCMS. Therefore, the attack vector was most probably a supply chain attack on the IT provider, or an exploitation of an OctoberCMS vulnerability, combined with exploitations of Log4Shell vulnerability (T1190).

defaced Ukrainian website

Figure 1. Example of defaced Ukrainian government website.

In addition to the website defacement, Microsoft Threat Intelligence Center (MSTIC), identified in a report destructive malware samples targeting Ukrainian organizations with two malware samples. Microsoft named the samples WhisperGate, while other security companies labeled the downloader as WhisperGate and WhisperKill as the actual wiper, which was considered a component of WhisperGate.

The identified files were:

  • Stage1 replaces the Master Boot Record (MBR) with a ransom note when the system is powered down, deeming the machine unbootable after that point. When booted up, the system displays Figure 2 on screen. Despite the ransom request, the data will not be recoverable since all efforts made by WhisperKill are looking to destroy data, not encrypt it. In this case, the wallet is most probably an attempt to decoy attribution efforts.

wiper ransom note

Figure 2. Ransom note obtained by MSTIC.

  • Stage 2 attempts to download the next stage malware (T1102.003) from the Discord app, if unsuccessful, it sleeps and tries again. The payload downloaded from the messaging app destroys as much data as possible by overwriting certain file types with 0xCC for the first MB of the file. Then it modifies the file extension to a random four-byte extension. By selecting the file types to be wiped and only writing over the first MB of data, the attackers are optimizing the wiping process. This is due to not wasting time on system files and only spending the necessary time to wipe each file, rapidly switching to the next file as soon as the current one is unrecoverable. Finally, the malware executes a command to delete itself from the system (T1070.004).

HermeticWiper

A month after, on February 23rd 2022, ESET Research reported a new Wiper being used against hundreds of Ukrainian systems. The wiper receives its name from the stolen certificate (T1588.003) it was using to bypass security controls “Hermetica Digital Ltd” (T1588.003). According to a Reuters article, the certificate could have also been obtained by impersonating the company and requesting a certificate from scratch.

hermetica certificate

Figure 3. Hermetica Digital Ltd certificate.

The attackers have been seen using several methods to distribute the wiper through the domain, like: domain Group Policy Object (GPO) (T1484.001), Impacket or SMB (T1021.002) and WMI (T1047) with an additional worm component named HermeticWizard.

The wiper component first installs the payload as a service (T1569.002) under C:Windowssystem32Drivers. Afterwards, the service corrupts the first 512 bytes of the MBR of all the Physical Drives, and then enumerates their partitions. Before attempting to overwrite as much data as the wiper can it will delete key files in the partition, like MFT, $Bitmap, $LogFile, the NTUSER registry hive (T1112) and the event logs (T1070.001).

On top of deleting key file system structures, it also performs a drive fragmentation (breaking up files and segregating them in the drive to optimize the system’s performance). The combination of the file fragmentation and the deletion of the MFT makes file recovery difficult, since files will be scattered through the drive in small parts – without any guidance as to where each part is located.

Finally, the malware writes randomized contents into all occupied sectors in the partition in an attempt to remove all potential hope of recovering any data with forensic tools or procedures.

IsaacWiper

A day after the initial destructive attack with HermeticWiper, on February 24th, 2022, a new wiper was used against the Ukrainian government, as reported by ESET, without any significant similarities to the HermaticWiper used the day before.

IsaacWiper identifies all the physical drives not containing the Operative System and locks their logical partitions by only allowing a single thread to access each of them. Then it starts to write random data into the drives in chunks of 64 KB. There is a unique thread per volume, making the wiping process very long.

Once the rest of the physical drives and the logical partitions sharing physical drive with the Operative System’s volume have been wiped, this last volume is wiped by:

  • Erasing the MBR.
  • Overwriting all files with 64 KB chunks of random data with one thread.
  • Creating a new file under the C drive which will be filled with random data until it takes the maximum space it can from the partition, overwriting the already overwritten existing files. This process is performed with a different thread, but it would still take a long time to write the full partition since both concurrent threads are actually attempting to write random data on the full disk.

Isaacwiper strings

Figure 4. IsaacWiper strings.

When comparing IsaacWiper to WhisperKill, the attackers’ priorities become clear. WhisperKill creators prioritized speed and number of affected files over ensuring the full drive is overwritten, since only 1 MB of each file was overwritten. On the other hand, IsaacWiper creators gave total priority to deliver the most effective wiper, no matter how long it takes to overwrite the full physical disk.

AcidRain

On the same day IsaacWiper was deployed, another wiper attacked Viasat KA-SAT modems in Ukraine, this time with a different wiper, named AcidRain by SentinelLABS. This wiper was particularly aimed at modems, probably to disrupt Internet access from Ukraine. This new wiper showed similarities to previously seen botnets targeting modems using VPNFilter. It was used in 2018, targeting vulnerabilities in several common router brands: Linksys, MikroTik, NETGEAR, and TP-Link. Exploiting vulnerabilities allowed the attackers to obtain Initial Access inside all types of networks, where the bot would search for Modbus traffic to identify infected systems with Industrial Control Systems (ICS).

The wiper used was the ELF MIPS wiper targeting Viasat KA-SAT modems, which aimed to firstly overwrite any file outside of the any common *nix installation: bin, boot, dev, lib, proc, sbin, sys, sur, etc. to then delete data from /dev/.

CaddyWiper

The first version of CaddyWiper was discovered by ESET researchers on 2022-03-14 when it was used against a Ukrainian bank. This new wiper variant does not have any significant code similarities to previous wipers. This sample specifically sets an exclusion to avoid infecting Domain Controllers in the infected system. Afterwards, it targets C:/Users and any additional attached drive all the way to letter Z:/ and zeroes all the files present in such folders/drives. Finally, the extended information of the physical drives is destroyed, including the MBR and partition entries.

A variant of CaddyWiper was used again on 2022-04-08 14:58 against high-voltage electrical substations in Ukraine. This latest version of the wiper was delivered together with Industroyer2, an evolution of Industroyer, which has the main functionn being to communicate with industrial equipment. In this case, the wiper was used with the purpose of slowing down the recovery process from the Industroyer2 attack and gaining back control of the ICS consoles, as well as covering the tracks of the attack. According to Welivesecurity, who have been cooperating with CERT-UA in this investigation, the Sandworm Team is behind this latest attack.

In this same attack against the energy station in Ukraine, other wiper samples for Linux and Solaris were observed by WeliveSecurity. These wipers leverage the shred command if present, otherwise they use the basic dd or rm commands to wipe the system.

DoubleZero wiper

On March 22, 2022 CERT-UA reported a new wiper used against their infrastructure and enterprises. Named DoubleZero, the wiper was distributed as a ZIP file containing an obfuscated .NET program. The wiper’s routine sets a hardcoded list of system directories, which are skipped during an initial wiping targeting user files. Afterwards, the skipped system directories are targeted and finally the registry hives: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE (containing the hives Sam, Security, Software and System), HKEY_CURRENT_USER and HKEY_USERS.

There are two wiping methods, both of which zero out the selected file.

doublezero wiper

Figure 5. DoubleZero first wiping function.

Conclusion

As we have seen in the examples above, the main objective of the attackers behind wipers is to destroy all possible data and render systems unbootable (if possible), potentially requiring a full system restore if backups aren’t available. These malware attacks can be as disruptive as ransomware attacks, but wipers are arguably worse since there is no potential escape door of a payment to recover the data.

There are plenty of ways to wipe systems. We've looked at 6 different wiper samples observed targeting Ukranian entities. These samples approach the attack in very different ways, and most of them occur faster than the time required to respond. For that reason, it is not effective to employ detection of wiper malware, as once they are in the system as it is already too late. The best approach against wipers is to prevent attacks by keeping systems up to date and by increasing cybersecurity awareness. In addition, consequences can be ameliorated by having periodic backup copies of key infrastructure available.

Associated indicators (IOCs)

The following technical indicators are associated with the reported intelligence. A list of indicators is also available in the following OTX Pulses:

Please note, the pulses may include other activities related but out of the scope of the report.

TYPE

INDICATOR

DESCRIPTION

SHA256

a196c6b8ffcb97ffb276d04f354696e2391311db3841ae16c8c9f56f36a38e92

WhisperKill (stage1.exe)

SHA256

dcbbae5a1c61dbbbb7dcd6dc5dd1eb1169f5329958d38b58c3fd9384081c9b78

WhisperKill (stage2.exe)

SHA256

0385eeab00e946a302b24a91dea4187c1210597b8e17cd9e2230450f5ece21da

HermeticWiper

SHA256

1bc44eef75779e3ca1eefb8ff5a64807dbc942b1e4a2672d77b9f6928d292591

HermeticWiper

SHA256

13037b749aa4b1eda538fda26d6ac41c8f7b1d02d83f47b0d187dd645154e033

IsaacWiper

SHA256

9b4dfaca873961174ba935fddaf696145afe7bbf5734509f95feb54f3584fd9a

AcidRain

SHA256

47f521bd6be19f823bfd3a72d851d6f3440a6c4cc3d940190bdc9b6dd53a83d6

AcidRain

SHA256

Fc0e6f2effbfa287217b8930ab55b7a77bb86dbd923c0e8150551627138c9caa

CaddyWiper

SHA256

7062403bccacc7c0b84d27987b204777f6078319c3f4caa361581825c1a94e87

Industroyer2

SHA256

3b2e708eaa4744c76a633391cf2c983f4a098b46436525619e5ea44e105355fe

DoubleZero

SHA256

30b3cbe8817ed75d8221059e4be35d5624bd6b5dc921d4991a7adc4c3eb5de4a

DoubleZero

 

Mapped to MITRE ATT&CK

The findings of this report are mapped to the following MITRE ATT&CK Matrix techniques:

  • TA0001: Initial Access
    • T1190: Exploit Public-Facing Application
  • TA0002: Execution
    • T1047: Windows Management Instrumentation
    • T1569: System Services
      • T1569.002: Service Execution
  • TA0008: Lateral Movement
    • T1021: Remote Services
      • T1021.002: SMB/Windows Admin Shares
  • TA0005: Defense Evasion
    • T1070: Indicator Removal on Host
      • T1070.004: File Deletion
      • T1070.001: Clear Windows Event Logs
    • T1112: Modify Registry
    • T1484: Domain Policy Modification
      • T1484.001: Group Policy Modification
  • TA0011: Command and Control
    • T1102: Web Service
      • T1102.003: One-Way Communication
  • TA0040: Impact
    • T1485: Data Destruction
    • T1499: Endpoint Denial of Service
  • TA0042: Resource Development
    • T1588: Obtain Capabilities
      • T1588.003: Code Signing Certificates

The post Analysis on recent wiper attacks: examples and how wiper malware works appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

This blog was written by an independent guest blogger.

Despite years of industry efforts to combat insider threats, malicious behavior can still sometimes be difficult to identify. As organizations work towards building a corporate cyber security culture, many have begun looking into zero-trust architectures to cover as many attack surfaces as possible.

This action is a step in the right direction, but it also has the potential to raise fears and generate negative responses from employees. Zero-trust security could instill demotivation and resentment if taken as a sign of poor faith and mistrust, accelerating turnover rates and bringing the Great Resignation to a peak. 

How can an organization effectively navigate zero-trust without creating friction among employers and employees? In addition, how can they get there without holding trust-building exercises as part of an in-office environment?

Why trust matters in modern business environments

The security perimeter is no longer a physical location in a modern enterprise; it is a set of access points dispersed in and delivered from the cloud. In addition to identity, the authorization model should factor in the sensitivity of the data, the source location of the request, reliability of the endpoint, etc. The use of multiple cloud platforms and a growing number of endpoints can massively expand the attack surface.

The foundation of zero-trust security starts by eliminating the word trust. Criminals today don’t break into network perimeters; they log in with stolen credentials and then move laterally across the network, hunting for more valuable data. Protecting the path from identity to data is crucial – this is at the heart of an ID-centric zero-trust architecture. To do so, security teams should:

  • Validate the user
  • Verify the device
  • Limit access and privilege

The layers that connect identity to data play essential roles in sharing context and supporting policy enforcement. A zero-trust architecture is continuously aware of identity and monitors for a change in context.

A new memorandum by the United States Government Office of Management and Budget (OBM) outlines why zero-trust architecture is crucial to securing web applications that are relied on daily. The SolarWinds attack reminds us that supply chain security is vital, and the recent Log4Shell incident also highlights how crucial effective incident response is, so finding a way to an improved security posture is imperative.

However, zero-trust does not mean encouraging mistrust through the organization’s networks, and companies should not have to rely on technologies alone for protection. When it is a team effort, security is best applied, and successful zero-trust depends on a culture of transparency, consistency, and communication across the whole organization. But how can organizations achieve this?

The two pillars of building (Zero) Trust

When building zero-trust in any organization, two key pillars must be considered – culture and tools.

As companies begin implementing zero-trust, they must also integrate it into their culture. Inform employees what’s going on, what the process of zero-trust entails, how it impacts and benefits them and the company, and how they can support the zero-trust process. By engaging employees and challenging them to embrace skepticism towards potential threats, businesses are planting the seeds of security across their organizational ecosystem. Once employees understand the value of zero-trust, they also feel trusted and empowered to be part of the broader cybersecurity strategy.

Once zero-trust has been implemented at the core of an organizations cybersecurity culture, the next step is to apply best practices to implement zero-trust. There are several measures that organizations can take, including:

  • Use strong authentication to control access.
  • Elevate authentication.
  • Incorporate password-less authentication.
  • (Micro)segment corporate network.
  • Secure all devices.
  • Segment your applications.
  • Define roles and access controls.

Although Zero-Trust is technology agnostic, it is deeply rooted in verifying identities. One of the first steps is identifying the network’s most critical and valuable data, applications, assets, and services. This step will help prioritize where to start and enable zero-trust security policies to be created. If the most critical assets can be identified, organizations can focus their efforts on prioritizing and protecting those assets as part of their zero-trust journey.

The use of multi-factor authentication is crucial here. It is not a case of if to use it, but when. Phishing-resistant MFA can’t be compromised even by a sophisticated phishing attack, which means the MFA solution cannot have anything that can be used as a credential by someone who stole it. This includes one-time passwords, security questions, and imperceptible push notifications.

The challenge of implementing zero-trust

One essential problem that most enterprises are dealing with is the issue of fragmented IAM. As a result, zero-trust implementation is fraught with high complexity, risks, and costs.

The key reason behind this problem is that organizations are operating multiple identity security silos. In fact, the Thales 2021 Access Management Index report indicates that 33% of the surveyed organizations have deployed three or more IAM tools. Coordinating that many systems can, at a minimum, create operational complexity, but it can also increase the risk of fragmented security policies, siloed views of user activity, and siloed containment.

A zero-trust culture should help enterprises with IAM silos to move towards a standardized zero-trust security model, with standardized security policies and adjustments orchestrated from a central control panel across underlying silos. The process should provide insights on security policy gaps and inconsistencies and recommend security policy adjustments based on zero-trust security principles.

Conclusion

A zero-trust approach to security is to cover all attack surfaces and protect organizations, but they mean nothing without people using them appropriately. Aligning company success and security with employee success and security is crucial. Deploying a centralized IAM solution that covers all attack surfaces ensures optimal protection and helps build confidence in a zero-trust business and computing environment.

The post Building trust in a Zero-Trust security environment appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

Stories from the SOC is a blog series that describes recent real-world security incident investigations conducted and reported by the AT&T SOC analyst team for AT&T Managed Extended Detection and Response customers.

Executive summary

Once a malicious actor has gained initial access to an internal asset, they may attempt to conduct command and control activity. The ‘Command and Control’ (C&C) tactic, as identified by the MITRE ATT&CK© Framework, consists “of techniques that adversaries may use to communicate with systems under their control within a victim network.” Cobalt Strike is an effective adversary simulation tool used in security assessments but has been abused by malicious actors for Command and Control of victim networks. If configured by attackers, it can be used to deploy malicious software, execute scripts, and more.

This investigation began when the Managed Extended Detection and Response (MXDR) analyst team received multiple alarms involving the detection of Cobalt Strike on an internal customer asset. Within ten minutes of this activity, the attacker launched a Meterpreter reverse shell and successfully installed remote access tools Atera and Splashtop Streamer on the asset. These actions allowed the attacker to establish multiple channels of command and control. In response, the MXDR team created an investigation and informed the customer of this activity. The customer determined that an endpoint detection and response (EDR) agent was not running on this asset, which could have prevented this attack from occurring. This threat was remediated by isolating the asset and scanning it with SentinelOne to remove indicators of compromise. Additionally, Cobalt Strike, Atera, and Splashtop Streamer were added to SentinelOne’s blacklist to prevent unauthorized execution of this software in the customer environment.

Investigation

Initial alarm review

Indicators of Compromise (IOC)

An initial alarm was triggered by a Windows Defender detection of Cobalt Strike on an internal customer asset. The associated log was provided to USM Anywhere using NXLog and was detected using a Windows Defender signature. Multiple processes related to Cobalt Strike were attached to this alarm.

Cobalt Strike, as mentioned previously, is a legitimate security tool that can be abused by malicious actors for Command and Control of compromised machines. In this instance, a Cobalt Strike beacon was installed on the compromised asset to communicate with the attacker’s infrastructure. Windows Defender took action to prevent these processes from running.

Immediately following the Cobalt Strike detection, an additional alarm was triggered for a Meterpreter reverse shell.

Meterpreter

A Meterpreter reverse shell is a component of the Metasploit Framework and requires the attacker to set up a remote ‘listener’ on their own infrastructure that ‘listens’ for connections. Upon successful exploitation, the victim machine connects to this remote listener, establishing a channel for the attacker to send malicious commands. A Meterpreter reverse shell can be used to allow an attacker to upload files to the victim machine, record user keystrokes, and more. In this instance, Windows Defender also took action to prevent this process from running.

Expanded investigation

Events search

During post-exploitation, an attacker may leverage scheduled tasks to run periodically, disable antivirus, or configure malicious applications to execute during startup. To query for this activity, specific event names, such as ‘Windows Autostart Location’, ‘New Scheduled Task’, and events containing ‘Windows Defender’, were added to a filter in USM Anywhere. An additional filter was applied to display events occurring in the last 24 hours. This expanded event search provided context into attacker activity around the time of the initial Cobalt Strike and Meterpreter alarms.

context for Cobalt Strike

Event deep dive

Just after the Cobalt Strike and Meterpreter detections, a scheduled task was created named “Monitoring Recovery.” This task is identified by Windows Event ID 106:

log Cobalt Strike

This scheduled task was used to install two remote monitoring and management (RMM) applications: Atera and Splashtop Streamer.

Shortly after this task was created and executed, an event was received indicating “AteraAgent.exe” was added as a Windows auto-start service.

AlteraAgent

AteraAgent.exe is associated with Atera, a legitimate computer management application that allows for remote access, management, and monitoring of computer systems, but has been abused by attackers for command and control of compromised systems.

This change was followed by an event involving “SRService.exe” being added as a Windows auto-start service on this asset:
SRServer
SRService.exe is associated with Splashtop Streamer Service, a remote access application commonly used by IT support, also abused by attackers for C&C communications.
At this point, the attacker attempted to create multiple channels for command and control using Cobalt Strike, Meterpreter, Atera, and Splashtop Streamer. While the Cobalt Strike and Meterpreter sessions were terminated by Windows Defender, Atera and Spashtop Streamer were successfully added as startup tasks. This allowed the attacker to establish persistence in the customer environment. Persistence, as identified by the MITRE ATT&CK framework, allows the attacker to maintain “access to systems across restarts, changed credentials, and other interruptions that could cut off their access.”

Response

Building the investigation

All alarms and events were carefully recorded in an investigation created in USM Anywhere. The customer was immediately contacted regarding this compromise, which lead to an ‘all-hands-on-deck’ call to remediate this threat. This compromise was escalated to the customer’s Threat Hunter, as well as management and Tier 2 analysts.

Customer interaction

The MXDR team worked directly with the customer to contain and remediate this threat. This asset was quarantined from the customer network where it was scanned for malicious indicators using SentinelOne. The customer installed the SentinelOne EDR agent on this asset to protect it from any current threats. Additionally, the unauthorized applications Cobalt Strike, Meterpreter, Atera, and Splashtop Streamer were added to SentinelOne’s blacklist to prevent future execution of these programs in the customer environment.

Limitations and opportunities

Limitations

While this compromise was quickly detected and contained, the customer lacked the protection required to prevent the applications Atera and Splashtop Steamer from being installed and added as Windows auto-start programs.

Opportunities

To protect an enterprise network from current threats, a multi-layered approach must be taken, otherwise known as ‘Defense in Depth.’ This entails multiple layers of protection, including Endpoint Detection and Response, implementation of a SIEM (Security Information and Event Management System), and additional security controls. With the addition of an EDR agent installed on this asset, this malicious behavior would have been prevented. AT&T’s Managed Endpoint Security (MES) provides endpoint detection and response and can be utilized along with USM Anywhere to actively detect, prevent, and notify the customer of malicious activity in their environment.

The post Stories from the SOC – Command and Control appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

This blog was written by an independent guest blogger.

Businesses that allow employees to work from home are more likely to encounter a new security threat — compromised smart home devices.

Smart technology connected to an employee’s home network, like smart thermostats, appliances, and wearables, can all fall victim to hackers. Workers that join their employer’s network remotely can unwittingly allow compromised devices to open the doors to hackers.

The right IT policies, training and technology can help businesses counter smart home device breaches.

Why hackers target smart home devices

Attacks against smart home devices are rising fast. There were more than 1.5 billion attacks on smart devices in the first half of 2021, with attackers generally looking to steal data or use compromised devices for future breaches and cryptocurrency mining.

IoT devices are often not as guarded as laptops or smartphones and are easier to breach. They may not be updated as frequently, making them vulnerable to well-known exploits. Users may also not notice unusual activity from an IoT device as readily, allowing hackers to use it as part of a botnet or further attacks.

At the same time, the number of smart home devices is growing fast. Consumers have access to a growing range of IoT appliances, including smart refrigerators, lightbulbs, coffee makers and washing machines. The smart home device market is expanding quickly, making it a fast-growing target for hackers.

As a result, smart home technology is a prime target for hackers who need devices to stage an attack or want to break into otherwise secure networks.

Protecting business networks from smart home security threats

Employees are ultimately responsible for their home devices, but a wider range of people and organizations can take action to make them more secure. Employers, IT departments, managed service providers (MSPs) and communication service providers (CSPs) have the power to improve safety.

Some IoT device security stakeholders, like CSPs, can also provide risk mitigation to customers who may not receive security support from their employer or IT team. Employers and IT departments can work with CSPs to cover aspects of home device security that they may not be able to manage on their own.

The right WFH policies and employee training can help protect business networks from an attack that uses smart home devices. In most cases, a combination of approaches will be necessary.

One popular strategy for securing WFH employee smart devices includes appointing an internal organizational member responsible for monitoring IoT security. They should require WFH employees with smart home devices to follow best practices, like automating updates and ensuring they are digitally signed.

Requiring home IoT devices to have a Secure Boot feature available and enabled will also be helpful. This ensures that the device’s bootloader executable is genuine and has not been tampered with, initiates basic logging and checks for available firmware updates.

This feature provides an excellent foundation for IoT device security and helps automate device updating. Secure Boot also lets IT teams verify that employee smart devices are not compromised.

It’s also important for an organization to formally determine its IoT risks and build a security policy. Companies that don’t know what kinds of dangers they face won’t be able to create a set of rules and requirements for WFH employees that keeps devices and networks safe.

Make sure IoT devices don’t become a security threat

Smart home devices are increasingly popular, but they can create significant security risks for employers. Having the right IT policy will help companies manage these risks.

A well-documented IoT policy that remote workers can follow, Secure Boot devices and a designated IoT security manager will make it easier for businesses to protect their networks from smart device security threats.

The post How to counter smart home device breaches appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

Cyberattacks are alarming, and establishments must increase protections, embrace a layered attitude, and cultivate security-conscious users to combat growing concerns.

Cybersecurity leaders are being inundated with talent development resources offered, encompassing hiring, recruitment, and retention of the talent pipeline. Fifty percent of hiring managers typically deem that their candidates aren’t highly qualified. Globally, the cybersecurity professional shortage is estimated to be 2.72 million based on findings in the 2021 (ISC)2 Cybersecurity Workforce Study & ISACA State of Cybersecurity 2021 Survey.

The cybersecurity workforce demand is a standing boardroom agenda for CISOs and senior executive constituents. CISOs must work collaboratively alongside human resources to solve talent pipeline challenges.

A Cyber Seek 2021 assessment indicates 597, 767 national cybersecurity job openings; thus, assertively, organizations must address this immediate disparity through consensus-building, diversity of thought, and out-of-the-box thinking. CISOs must evaluate their current hiring practices, transform ideal-to-actual job descriptions, and scrutinize their HR/organizational culture to remove aggressive tendencies and embrace a more forward-leaning, authentic, and autonomous culture.

Talent development is considered the cornerstone to increasing diversity-infused candidates into the cybersecurity pipeline. Based on my experience, I have adopted a three-prong attack strategy to cultivate a unique palette of experience and knowledge to ascertain a solid talent-rich team.

This goes beyond the outdated mentality of third-party partnerships to lean on certificates, degrees, professional associations, and internship/fellowship programming to acquire unique talent. This approach, combined with interview preparation and stretch assignments, creates real-time, mutually beneficial skills for current team members.

Lastly, providing opportunities to showcase my employees’ newfound skills through conferences (internal/external), community engagements, and immersive responsibilities provide hands-on experiences & shadowing opportunities. This helps to level up knowledge transfer and strengthen mentorship/sponsorship programs that create a more synergistic, follow-then-lead approach to build the talent pipeline.

As a transformational leader, it is paramount to change current hiring practices to further reach untapped talent inside and outside the organization using my three-prong attack strategy:

1. Go where the talent is located. Seek talent that has the drive, ambition, and tenacity to level themselves up through self-driven, multipronged vectors and consequently are thirsty and self-motivated.

2. Survey current hiring practices to identify the talent gaps. (Who? Where? Why? When? What?  & How?). Build a diverse talent pipeline and create new partnerships that are currently serving the population previously identified in the gap analysis.

3. “Try before you buy” mentality. Increase credibility and employee confidence through stretch assignments, mentorships/sponsorships, and leadership development tasks to align employees with exposure and insight before leaping to a new role.

My guiding principles lead me to ignite my employees' inner authenticity and emotional intelligence to provide a team-oriented, future-oriented culture. This culture relies heavily on an in-group collectivism mindset to tap into “their inner leader.” Deeply coupled partnerships operate from a customized driver/navigator paradigm to provide an inclusive, autonomous environment.

In my experience, cybersecurity job descriptions primarily tend to be too inelastic. The panic-stricken job descriptions can turn away competent, qualified, and dedicated applicants. Plus, many highly qualified individuals do not have college degrees nor have attended boot camps or completed traditional security training that would be excellent security candidates.

Moreover, career changers are a large part of the untapped real estate that possess lucrative, diverse skillsets (i.e., lawyers, teachers, and librarians). Hiring candidates with the desire, passion, and willingness to learn or self-hone their skills should be treasured and respected.  Pioneering thought leadership is vital to building an above-board Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) focused organization to complement current best practices interlaced with a meet-them-where-they-are mentality to cultivate good results.

The post Challenges that impact the Cybersecurity talent pipeline appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

Resilience means more than bouncing back from a fall at a moment of significantly increased threats. When addressing resilience, it’s vital to focus on long-term goals instead of short-term benefits. Resilience in the cybersecurity context should resist, absorb, recover, and adapt to business disruptions.

Cyber resiliency can’t be accomplished overnight. For the longest time, the conversation around getting the cybersecurity message across at the board level has revolved around the business language. Businesses cannot afford to treat cybersecurity as anything but a systemic issue. While the board tends to strategize about managing business risks, cybersecurity professionals tend to concentrate their efforts at the technical, organizational, and operational levels. The languages used to manage the business and manage cybersecurity are different. This might obscure both the understanding of the real risk and the best approach to address the risk. Early on in my career, I was told to think of how to transform geek to CEO speak. That piece of advice still holds true.

Why? The argument for board-level cybersecurity understanding

The reality today is that cybersecurity is a critical business issue that must be a priority for every organization. As business operations become increasingly digitized, data has become one of the most valuable assets of any organization. This has resulted in increased expectations from customers, employees, regulators, and other stakeholders that an organization has developed appropriate resilience measures to protect against the evolving cyber threat landscape. The failure to do so presents substantial risks, including loss of consumer confidence, reputational damage, litigation, and regulatory consequences.

How? Changing the narrative away from the ‘team of no.'

The ‘how’ equation comes in two distinct yet equally important parts. One is levelling-up of the board’s cybersecurity knowledge. The other ensures that security teams get board-level support. The second of these requires those teams to help change the narrative: instead of being the 'team of no,' security teams need to be seen as influencers. Enablers and not enforcers, in other words.

It's time to stop repeating how things can't be done (on security grounds). Rather, we need to preach from the business transformation book and explain how they can be. We must stop operating out of silos and build out relationships with all business players, embedding 'scenario thinking' and responsiveness into organizational cyber functioning. But just as importantly, to address the first part, the board needs to proactively plan and prepare for a cyber-crisis; only by understanding the risks can the business be in the right strategic place to combat them successfully.

Cybersecurity teams should equip the board with the following as a starting point. 

  • A clear articulation of the current cyber risks facing all aspects of the business (not just IT); and
  • A summary of recent cyber incidents, how they were handled, and lessons learned.
  • Short- and long-term road maps outlining how the company will continue to evolve its cyber capabilities to address new and expanded threats, including the related accountabilities in place to ensure progress; and
  • Meaningful metrics that provide supporting essential performance and risk indicators of successful management of top-priority cyber risks that are being managed today

Business and cybersecurity success go hand in hand

As the board’s role in cyber-risk oversight evolves, the importance of having a robust dialogue with the cyber influencers within an organization cannot be overestimated. Without close communication between boards and the cyber/risk team, the organization could be at even greater risk.

If this sounds like a cybersecurity grooming exercise, that's because it is. Preparing cybersecurity practitioners with business acumen for the board to act as the voice of educated reason isn't such a bad idea, is it? The best businesses thrive because they have people at the very top who can exert control based on informed decision-making when a crisis looms. Leaving cybersecurity out of this success equation in 2022 is a very risky game.

The post Cybersecurity and resilience: board-level issues appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

Stories from the SOC is a blog series that describes recent real-world security incident investigations conducted and reported by the AT&T SOC analyst team for AT&T Managed Extended Detection and Response customers.

Executive summary

One of the most prevalent threats today, facing both organizations and individuals alike, is the use of ransomware. In 2021, 37% of organizations said they were victims of some type of ransomware attack. Ransomware can render large amounts of important data inaccessible nearly instantly. This makes reacting to potential ransomware events in a timely and accurate manner extremely important. Utilizing an endpoint security tool is critical to  help mitigate these threats. However, it is vital to maintain vigilance and situational awareness when addressing these threats, and not rely solely on one piece of information when performing analysis.

The AT&T Managed Extended Detection and Response (MXDR) analyst team received an alarm stating SentinelOne had detected ransomware on a customer’s asset. The logs suggested the threat had been automatically quarantined, but further analysis suggested something more sinister was afoot. The same malicious executable had been detected on that asset twice before, both times reportedly being automatically quarantined. This type of persistent malware can be an indicator of a deeper infection such as a rootkit. After a more in-depth analysis and collaboration with the customer, the decision was made to quarantine and power off the asset, and replace the asset entirely due to this persistent malware.

Investigation

Initial alarm review

Indicators of Compromise (IOC)

The initial SentinelOne alarm alerted us to an executable ‘mssecsvc.exe’:

IoC persistent malware

The name of the executable as well as the file path is cleverly crafted to imitate a legitimate Windows program.

Expanded investigation

Events search

Searching events for the file hash revealed it had been repeatedly detected on the same asset over the last 2 weeks. In each instance the event log reports the executable being automatically quarantined by SentinelOne.

Persistent malware events

Additionally, a seach in USM Anywhere revealed two previous investigations opened for the same executable on the same asset. In both previous investigations the customer noted SentinelOne had automatically quarantined the file but did not take any further action regarding the asset.

Event deep dive

In the new instance of this alarm the event log reports SentinelOne successfully killed any processes associated with the executable and quarantined the file.

deep dive 1 Deep dive 2

This may lead one to believe there is no longer a threat. But the persistent nature of this file raises more questions than the event log can answer.

Reviewing additional indicators

It is important to not rely on a single piece of information when assessing threats and to go beyond just what is contained in the logs we are given. Utilizing open-source threat intelligence strengthens our analysis and can confirm findings. Virus Total confirmed the file hash was deemed malicious by multiple other vendors.

Persistent malware additional indicators

The executable was also analyzed in JoeSandbox. This revealed the file contained a device path for a binary string ‘FLASHPLAYERUPDATESERVICE.EXE which could be used for kernel mode communication, further hinting at a rootkit.

JoeSandbox

Response

Building the investigation

Despite the event log suggesting the threat had been automatically quarantined, the combination of the repeat occurrence and the findings on open-source threat intel platforms warranted raising an investigation to the customer. The customer was alerted to the additional findings, and it was recommended to remove the asset from the network.

Response for persistent malware

The customer agreed with the initial analysis and suspected something more serious. The analysts then searched through the Deep Visibility logs from SentinelOne to determine the source of the mssecsvc.exe. Deep Visibility logs allow us to follow associated processes in a storyline order. In this case, it appears the ‘mssecsvc.exe’ originated from the same ‘FlashPlayerUpdateService.exe’ we saw in the JoeSandbox analysis. Deep Visibility also showed us that mssecsvc.exe had a Parent Process of wininit.exe, which was likely to be the source of persistence.

customer response to persistent malware

Customer interaction

Another notable feature of USM Anywhere is the ability to take action from one centralized portal. As a result of the investigation, the analysts used the Advanced AlienApp for SentinelOne to place the asset in network quarantine mode and then power it off. An internal ticket was submitted by the customer to have the asset replaced entirely.

Limitations and opportunities

Limitations

A limiting factor for the SOC is our visibility into the customer's environment as well as what information we are presented in log data. The event logs associated with this alarm suggested there was no longer a threat, as it had been killed and quarantined by SentinelOne. Taking a single instance of information at face value could have led to further damage, both financially and reputationally. This investigation highlighted the importance of thinking outside the log, researching historical investigations, and combining multiple sources of information to improve our analysis.

The post Stories from the SOC – Persistent malware appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.