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

6/11/2015
06:10 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

4 Unsolved Mysteries About Duqu 2.0

Several key questions remain surrounding the nation-state attack targeting intel at Kaspersky Lab, international participants at the Iranian nuclear negotiations, and other organizations.

Kaspersky Lab's revelation yesterday that it had been hacked by a nation-state apparently hungry for intelligence on its research and newest technologies aimed at thwarting the very same type of attacker rocked both the security and diplomatic communities. Although the security firm provided in-depth analysis of some of the code and zero-day exploits used by the attackers in the so-called Duqu 2.0 campaign, there a still a few key things Kaspersky Lab and other security experts studying the malware admit they don't know about the attacks.

Besides the obvious whodunit question -- none of the researchers would comment despite plenty of fingers pointing at Israel -- there are some other big unanswered questions about this bold cyber espionage campaign:

 

Were any other security companies hit besides Kaspersky Lab?

Symantec, FireEye, and Trend Micro all told Dark Reading they were not attacked by Duqu 2.0, and no other security vendors so far have come forward reporting a Duqu 2.0 infection. But given the stealthy way Duqu 2.0 operates in memory and disappears altogether when a system is rebooted -- the attackers can do this themselves to cover their tracks -- how can anyone be sure they aren't a victim?

"It's almost not possible to see in a computer system because there are no disk files, no registry changes, nothing," Eugene Kaspersky told reporters at a press briefing on the attack yesterday.

It took the company "a few months," he says, before it noticed something was awry and then researchers began to investigate a possible breach.

Kurt Baumgartner, principal security researcher at Kaspersky Lab, which has released indicators of compromise it found for the attack, says there are more victims out there, for sure. "There is no doubt that this attack had a much wider geography and many more targets – we would say up to 100. But judging from what the company already knows, Duqu 2.0 has been used to attack the most complex targets of the highest level including geo-political interests," he says.

 

What zero-day exploit was used in the first step of the attack against Kaspersky?

Researchers at Kaspersky Lab were able to identify two of three zero-day exploits used in the Duqu 2.0 attack on the company, but are still trying to determine what vulnerability the attackers used against their initial victim, an employee in the Asia Pacific region that was infected via a spear phishing attack.

Baumgartner yesterday said it could be something exploiting CVE-2014-4148, which allows an attacker to get to kernel mode from a Word Document. But they have not yet confirmed the details on that first attack vector.

Nor has Symantec. "A big hole in our research is we don't know the infection vector of Duqu 2.0," says Vikram Thakur, senior manager of Symantec Security Response. "We're still looking at how the infections happened with our customers."

 

Exactly what the attackers stole.

Eugene Kaspersky said yesterday that the company does not know for sure what happened to the information that was accessed by the Duqu 2.0 attackers. "We're not really sure what they're looking for," he said.

Thakur says what stands out most about Duqu 2.0 is its ability to come and go: "It doesn't leave a file on your file system or computer ... and when with a restart, it's gone," he says. "The attackers did this on purpose because they were able to steal what they needed during the day and when they shut down, [the machine] was clean."

Thakur says his team is still analyzing the malware's modules, and they don't know yet how exactly the attacker exfiltrated data.

Other security experts say that because of the way Duqu 2.0 operates, Kaspersky Lab and other victims cannot be sure just information was stolen -- they may not be able to see all of the compromised data and systems.

Gautam Aggarwal, chief marketing officer at Bay Dynamics, says he thinks the attackers were searching for vulnerabilities in Kaspersky's Secure OS and Anti-APT products. "The fact that this Duqu 2.0 cyberattack was an in-memory attack [and] didn’t create or modify any disk files or system settings, it made detection almost impossible for" Kaspersky, he says.

"Once the attackers have a sense of what vulnerabilities exist in [Kaspersky Lab's] products and solutions, it becomes an easy vector for them to exploit and infiltrate customers running [those] products and solutions," he says.

Kaspersky Lab's role in investigating the original Duqu attack in 2011 is likely why it was targeted as well, he says. "It almost feels that the APT threat group used [Kaspersky Lab] as a pivot point for the Duqu 2.0 attack by breaching their internal defenses and driving a point home," he says.

"My sense is Kaspersky Lab is the beginning. We are bound to see more vendors" being targeted, he says.

 

What's the mysterious module that appears to have ICS/SCADA clues?

Costin Raiu, the director of Kaspersky Lab's global research and analysis team, this morning tweeted out a screen shot of the file names in one of Duqu 2.0's modules, asking, "Do you recognize these filenames and paths targeted by one of the cryptic #Duqu2 modules? Let us know."

Researchers were hammering away at the sample late today, but the acronym "HMI" shows up in the filename, suggesting an ICS/SCADA system connection. HMI stands for human-machine interface in the industrial product sector.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
6/12/2015 | 2:36:29 PM
Re: Attacks through Memory
Great question, @RyanSepe. I don't know of any data on memory-borne attacks, but that would be interesting. It's not something the standard cybercriminal could/would do, so this is a pretty unique and advanced attack.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
6/12/2015 | 2:34:04 PM
Attacks through Memory
What are the metrics around attacks through memory, in terms of rate of success and frequency? I feel if they are decent in both previous categories they will become extremely prevalent if they aren't already.
Florida Town Pays $600K to Ransomware Operators
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/20/2019
Pledges to Not Pay Ransomware Hit Reality
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  6/21/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-12280
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-25
PC-Doctor Toolbox before 7.3 has an Uncontrolled Search Path Element.
CVE-2019-3961
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-25
Nessus versions 8.4.0 and earlier were found to contain a reflected XSS vulnerability due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An unauthenticated, remote attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability via a specially crafted request to execute arbitrary script code in a users browse...
CVE-2019-9836
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-25
Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV) on Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) Platform Security Processor (PSP; aka AMD Secure Processor or AMD-SP) 0.17 build 11 and earlier has an insecure cryptographic implementation.
CVE-2019-6328
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-25
HP Support Assistant 8.7.50 and earlier allows a user to gain system privilege and allows unauthorized modification of directories or files. Note: A different vulnerability than CVE-2019-6329.
CVE-2019-6329
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-25
HP Support Assistant 8.7.50 and earlier allows a user to gain system privilege and allows unauthorized modification of directories or files. Note: A different vulnerability than CVE-2019-6328.