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 the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. 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
 

Recommended Reading:

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.
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/3/2020
Pen Testers Who Got Arrested Doing Their Jobs Tell All
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/5/2020
Browsers to Enforce Shorter Certificate Life Spans: What Businesses Should Know
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/30/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
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
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-17366
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
An issue was discovered in NLnet Labs Routinator 0.1.0 through 0.7.1. It allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions or to cause a denial of service on dependent routing systems by strategically withholding RPKI Route Origin Authorisation ".roa" files or X509 Certificate...
CVE-2020-9036
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
Jeedom through 4.0.38 allows XSS.
CVE-2020-15127
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
In Contour ( Ingress controller for Kubernetes) before version 1.7.0, a bad actor can shut down all instances of Envoy, essentially killing the entire ingress data plane. GET requests to /shutdown on port 8090 of the Envoy pod initiate Envoy's shutdown procedure. The shutdown procedure includes flip...
CVE-2020-15132
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
In Sulu before versions 1.6.35, 2.0.10, and 2.1.1, when the "Forget password" feature on the login screen is used, Sulu asks the user for a username or email address. If the given string is not found, a response with a `400` error code is returned, along with a error message saying that th...
CVE-2020-7298
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
Unexpected behavior violation in McAfee Total Protection (MTP) prior to 16.0.R26 allows local users to turn off real time scanning via a specially crafted object making a specific function call.