Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Application Security //

Ransomware

// // //

New Insight on WannaCry's Roots

Is it possible we've been looking in the wrong direction for the source of the WannaCry attack?

Ever since news of the WannaCry attack broke, people have been searching for the culprits -- those responsible for the attack and from which evil lair the attacks were launched. Many fingers were pointed at Russia and eastern Europe -- but were those fingers pointed at the wrong target?

According to an article in Foreign Policy, those early fingers might have been pointed too far to the West. The article references researchers at Symantec and other anti-malware companies who found tell-tale electronic fingerprints on the attack -- fingerprints that would seem to belong to hackers in North Korea.

For years, security researchers have used digital "fingerprints," or snippets of code that tend to be unique to an individual programmer or group of programmers, to identify the source of attacks and vulnerability exploits. Over time, these researchers have found that this evidence that a particular programmer worked on a block of code tend to be persistent, no matter how many other hackers might touch the malware, because of the tendency to cut and paste rather than develop each attack from a clean sheet of paper.

The fingerprints on the WannaCry code indicate that it spent time in North Korea. What it doesn't really say, is whether the attack was launched, or ordered, by North Koreans. There are plenty of signs to indicate that the attack didn't come from a nation state: It didn't really raise very much money, and the feature that allowed a researcher to stop WannaCry in its tracks was rather crudely implemented.

Why does all this matter?

Because, like plant and animal DNA, the digital fingerprints on malware ultimately allow researchers to tell the story of where the software has been, how it's evolved, and how it's likely to be used in the future. All of that adds up to information that makes it possible to more effectively fight the malware and remediate the damage done, and ultimately, to point the finger of responsibility in the right direction.

— Curtis Franklin is the editor of SecurityNow.com. Follow him on Twitter @kg4gwa.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The 10 Most Impactful Types of Vulnerabilities for Enterprises Today
Managing system vulnerabilities is one of the old est - and most frustrating - security challenges that enterprise defenders face. Every software application and hardware device ships with intrinsic flaws - flaws that, if critical enough, attackers can exploit from anywhere in the world. It's crucial that defenders take stock of what areas of the tech stack have the most emerging, and critical, vulnerabilities they must manage. It's not just zero day vulnerabilities. Consider that CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog lists vulnerabilitlies in widely used applications that are "actively exploited," and most of them are flaws that were discovered several years ago and have been fixed. There are also emerging vulnerabilities in 5G networks, cloud infrastructure, Edge applications, and firmwares to consider.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2023-1142
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-27
In Delta Electronics InfraSuite Device Master versions prior to 1.0.5, an attacker could use URL decoding to retrieve system files, credentials, and bypass authentication resulting in privilege escalation.
CVE-2023-1143
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-27
In Delta Electronics InfraSuite Device Master versions prior to 1.0.5, an attacker could use Lua scripts, which could allow an attacker to remotely execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2023-1144
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-27
Delta Electronics InfraSuite Device Master versions prior to 1.0.5 contains an improper access control vulnerability in which an attacker can use the Device-Gateway service and bypass authorization, which could result in privilege escalation.
CVE-2023-1145
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-27
Delta Electronics InfraSuite Device Master versions prior to 1.0.5 are affected by a deserialization vulnerability targeting the Device-DataCollect service, which could allow deserialization of requests prior to authentication, resulting in remote code execution.
CVE-2023-1655
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-27
Heap-based Buffer Overflow in GitHub repository gpac/gpac prior to 2.4.0.