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.

Attacks/Breaches

9/11/2020
03:10 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

APT Groups Set Sights on Linux Targets: Inside the Trend

Researchers see more advanced attack groups creating tools and platforms to target Linux-based devices.

A steady increase in advanced persistent threat (APT) groups targeting Linux resources has prompted researchers to share the details of these attacks and explain the misconceptions around Linux security, as well as how organizations can better protect their Linux machines.

Kaspersky's Global Research & Analysis Team (GReAT) has observed this steady trend over the last eight years, says researcher Yury Namestnikov, More and more advanced groups are creating tools, and even platforms, to target devices running Linux software, he says.

Related Content:

Meet the Middlemen Who Connect Cybercriminals With Victims

The Threat from the Internet—and What Your Organization Can Do About It

New on The Edge: Think You're Spending Enough on Security?

There is a broadly held opinion that the Linux operating system is secure by default and not susceptible to malicious code. The misconception is rooted in the idea that cybercriminals have less malware for, and interest in, Linux desktops and servers. Much has been written about targeted attacks on Windows, the platform where Kaspersky finds the most APT attack tools.

While Linux hasn't faced the flood of viruses, worms, and Trojans that Windows systems have seen, researchers emphasize it's still an attractive target. Cyberattackers have PHP backdoors, rootkits, and exploit code written for Linux, but many businesses aren't very worried about it.

The implications are dangerous. As a result, information security departments and the security teams at software vendors are less focused on mitigations for this problem, creating a situation in which organizations have less visibility and tools to protect Linux desktops, servers, and IoT.

"It's not true for all organizations, but unfortunately, it's a common situation in many cases," Namestnikov explains. "And when we start to talk about targeted attacks we can easily see, almost every serious threat actor has some surprise tools for hacking in and getting control over Linux-running machines.

There are many reasons why APT groups target Linux over Windows, he says. A key factor is the trend toward containerization, which has driven Linux adoption. The machines can usually be accessed from the Internet and may serve as an initial entry point for attackers. A shift to virtualization and containerization means nearly all businesses use Linux in some daily tasks. 

Many organizations use more Linux and macOS devices than Windows systems, Namestnikov adds, giving attackers no other option. IT companies, telcos, and governments are among them. In some regions there is a move to adopt more Linux in desktop environments, especially in government and defense spheres such as Turkey and China, he notes.

Kaspersky's telemetry indicates servers are the most common target of these attacks, followed by corporate IT and network devices, then workstations. There have been in cases in which the attackers used compromised routers, running Linux, as a command-and-control for Windows implants in the same network, Namestnikov points out.

Servers should be a primary concern, researchers write in their full analysis. The strategic importance of Linux-based servers makes them a hot target. If an attacker can compromise a Linux server, they could both gain access to data on that server and target endpoints running Windows or macOS that may be connected. 

An Evolving Threat
Attackers have made changes to Linux malware and attacks targeting Linux devices. When they first began to write malware, their goal was to manipulate network traffic. This was clear in the case of Cloud Snooper, a threat actor that used a server-oriented Linux kernel rootkit designed to hook Netfilter traffic control functions and command-and-control communication that crossed the target's firewall.

Researchers note the same goal was evident for Barium/APT41. This group started out in 2013 targeting gaming companies for financial gain; over time, it developed new tools and went after more complicated targets. It employed Linux malware dubbed MessageTap, which attackers used to intercept SMS messages from the infrastructure of telecom providers.

APT attackers targeting Linux often use legitimate tools that are available on Linux-based servers and desktops — for example, the ability to compile code or run Python scripts — which ultimately leaves fewer traces in the logs, Namestnikov says. The most concerning things, he says, is their ability to hide on Linux devices, and leave then return as they please.

To do this, he explains, they can either infect IoT or network boxes, or replace legitimate files on compromised servers. Because these servers are not often updated, and in many cases don't have antivirus installed, these replacements are often seen too late — if they're seen at all. 

While Linux remains less frequently targeted than Windows, researchers advise businesses to take steps to protect their environments from these kinds of attacks. Their first tip is to keep a list of trusted sources for software and only install applications from official stores. Linux may provide more freedom, but it puts pressure on organizations to download software wisely.

Beyond this, they recommend checking network settings and avoiding unnecessary network applications. Organizations are also advised to properly configure their firewall from the Linux distributive to filter traffic and store the host's network activity. Other suggestions include protecting locally stored SSH keys used for network services, and setting up multifactor authentication for SSH sessions.

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
digitalindia
100%
0%
digitalindia,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/12/2020 | 1:41:14 AM
Full-Form List
Hello nice post 
satyavgupta
50%
50%
satyavgupta,
User Rank: Author
9/14/2020 | 7:49:55 AM
Linux based servers are indeed the latest targets
Great article. As youve rightly observed, containers and vulnerable code in those containers can easily provide access to a malicious actor. If applications in those containers are running with privileged access, the malicious actor can gain access to the container runtime and the underlying cluster as well.

Many CISOs tend to think that the ephemeral nature of containers insulates them from vulnerabilities in the code but nothing could be farther from reality. The vulnerability is like a doorway, it lets the malicious actor no matter when they come visiting. For example, a SQL Injection vulnerability can facilitate dropping of "additional code" or malware on the file system. From a remote attacker's perspective, the code in the container is the very FIRST barrier they need to breach for launching an even bigger assault. So PLEASE protect your applications with high quality application aware continuous runtime security controls.
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Google Cloud Debuts Threat-Detection Service
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  9/23/2020
Shopify's Employee Data Theft Underscores Risk of Rogue Insiders
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  9/23/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-26120
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-27
XSS exists in the MobileFrontend extension for MediaWiki before 1.34.4 because section.line is mishandled during regex section line replacement from PageGateway. Using crafted HTML, an attacker can elicit an XSS attack via jQuery's parseHTML method, which can cause image callbacks to fire even witho...
CVE-2020-26121
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-27
An issue was discovered in the FileImporter extension for MediaWiki before 1.34.4. An attacker can import a file even when the target page is protected against "page creation" and the attacker should not be able to create it. This occurs because of a mishandled distinction between an uploa...
CVE-2020-25812
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-27
An issue was discovered in MediaWiki 1.34.x before 1.34.4. On Special:Contributions, the NS filter uses unescaped messages as keys in the option key for an HTMLForm specifier. This is vulnerable to a mild XSS if one of those messages is changed to include raw HTML.
CVE-2020-25813
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-27
In MediaWiki before 1.31.10 and 1.32.x through 1.34.x before 1.34.4, Special:UserRights exposes the existence of hidden users.
CVE-2020-25814
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-27
In MediaWiki before 1.31.10 and 1.32.x through 1.34.x before 1.34.4, XSS related to jQuery can occur. The attacker creates a message with [javascript:payload xss] and turns it into a jQuery object with mw.message().parse(). The expected result is that the jQuery object does not contain an <a> ...