Perimeter
7/23/2009
07:00 PM
Gadi Evron
Gadi Evron
Commentary
50%
50%

The BlackBerry 'Trojan Horse'

Research In Motion's announcement that users in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) who installed an update on their BlackBerrys ended up with a surveillance application raises some key questions.

Research In Motion's announcement that users in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) who installed an update on their BlackBerrys ended up with a surveillance application raises some key questions.This BBC story covers the incident, in which an update was suggested to customers of Etisalat via a text message proselytizing it for improved performance.

But instead, the BlackBerrys with the new software started acting strangely, crashing, running out of battery power, getting low reception, and in some cases shutting down entirely. That was when BlackBerry maker RIM started investigating.

According to a press release from RIM quoted in the BBC story,

"Etisalat appears to have distributed a telecommunications surveillance application...independent sources have concluded that it is possible that the installed software could then enable unauthorised access to private or confidential information stored on the user's smartphone."
The BBC further states:
"The update has now been identified as an application developed by American firm SS8. The California-based company describes itself as a provider of 'lawful electronic intercept and surveillance solutions.'"

Whatever the reason for the update, this action could not have been well-planned, was planned to fail, or perhaps was even a premature execution of an operation. Regardless, such massive-scale surveillance operations suggest government involvement, whether or not it was the UAE. But it has an amateurish feel to it, which makes me doubt it was a government effort. Plus the government could more easily perform eavesdropping by tapping communication at a more central location.

Several possible perpetrators immediately jump to mind, by likelihood:

    1. Someone tricked the users, and it wasn't Etisalat (think phishing and criminals). 2. Etisalat did it on its own, for its own business reasons or partnerships. 3. Etisalat was not aware of what some of its employees were doing. 4. Etisalat was complying with the UAE government. 5. Etisalat was preparing an infrastructure to comply with government eavesdropping requests, using a very poor choice of technology.

Motive, however, is a whole other question.

Most important questions to ask at this point, outside of questioning Etisalat:

    1. From where did the SMS text message originate? 2. Where did users go to download the update?

Such a large-scale operation had no hope of remaining secret forever, even if successful.

From a security standpoint, the threat of scams that get users to click on or download software that compromises their machines is by far not a new trick. If that is what happened, we can just mark it down as "yet another incident." Etisalat did confirm that they pushed an update to users, though. Interesting.

This also should raise concerns about the content of software updates as decided by vendors and operators. They often hide updates inside updates, with no regulation telling them what they can and cannot do. There also have been cases where end users get products that come infected with malware due to unclean work environments. These incidents occur in compromised supply chains, for instance, especially with USB sticks.

Vendors naturally protect their software by claiming more and more rights on it from users. Perhaps it is time for activism in reverse -- to protect user rights, as well.

Follow Gadi Evron on Twitter: http://twitter.com/gadievron

Gadi Evron is an independent security strategist based in Israel. Special to Dark Reading.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
Flash Poll
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Considering how prevalent third-party attacks are, we need to ask hard questions about how partners and suppliers are safeguarding systems and data.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-5395
Published: 2014-11-21
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Huawei HiLink E3276 and E3236 TCPU before V200R002B470D13SP00C00 and WebUI before V100R007B100D03SP01C03, E5180s-22 before 21.270.21.00.00, and E586Bs-2 before 21.322.10.00.889 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users ...

CVE-2014-7137
Published: 2014-11-21
Multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in Dolibarr ERP/CRM before 3.6.1 allow remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the (1) contactid parameter in an addcontact action, (2) ligne parameter in a swapstatut action, or (3) project_ref parameter to projet/tasks/contact.php; (4...

CVE-2014-7871
Published: 2014-11-21
SQL injection vulnerability in Open-Xchange (OX) AppSuite before 7.4.2-rev36 and 7.6.x before 7.6.0-rev23 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via a crafted jslob API call.

CVE-2014-8090
Published: 2014-11-21
The REXML parser in Ruby 1.9.x before 1.9.3 patchlevel 551, 2.0.x before 2.0.0 patchlevel 598, and 2.1.x before 2.1.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU and memory consumption) a crafted XML document containing an empty string in an entity that is used in a large number of nes...

CVE-2014-8469
Published: 2014-11-21
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Guests/Boots in AdminCP in Moxi9 PHPFox before 4 Beta allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the User-Agent header.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?