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

2/9/2018
12:20 PM
Kelly Sheridan
Kelly Sheridan
Slideshows
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

8 Nation-State Hacking Groups to Watch in 2018

The aliases, geographies, famous attacks, and behaviors of some of the most prolific threat groups.
Previous
1 of 9
Next

(Image: NicoElNino via Shutterstock)

(Image: NicoElNino via Shutterstock)

The nation-state threat landscape is constantly shifting. Threat actors alter strategies, switch targets, change tools - and for organizations who need to defend against these groups, keeping track of the players can seem impossible.

Some hotbed regions are getting hotter, and some big-name actors are getting bigger. A perfect example is Fancy Bear (also known as APT28 and Sofacy), one of many groups believed to act out of Russia and Eastern Europe. The group is thought to be an arm of the Russian military intelligence agency GRU.

"[Fancy Bear] is probably the most famous group right now," says John Hultquist, FireEye director of intel analysis, who expects Fancy Bear will become even more brazen over the course of this year. Security experts point to Fancy Bear as the predominant threat group to watch in 2018 as it widens its bullseye to include more corporate targets.  

North Korea is another hotbed for cyberattacks. The North Korean regime has invested significant resources in its cyber capabilities and groups from the area have been linked to a variety of activity, from the infamous Sony breach, to WannaCry and cryptocurrency mining.

Here are the nation-state threat groups security researchers are watching most closely - and the aliases, geographies, behaviors, past attacks, and changing strategies related to each one.  

 

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

Previous
1 of 9
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Jeff.schilling
100%
0%
Jeff.schilling,
User Rank: Author
2/9/2018 | 1:38:49 PM
Would have Added the Shadow Brokers to this list
I enjoyed this list, but feel like is was mostly focused on outed Russian and NKorean actors over the last year.  I would have definitely added the Shadow Brokers to this list.  The stolen tools they put out on the open market appear to be legite nation-state level tools that were easily weaponized, allegedly by one or more of the groups listed here, in WannaCry and NOTPetya.  Would definitely keep your threat research team focused on if any more of the tools they may have are dropped on the open market.  
SOC 2s & Third-Party Assessments: How to Prevent Them from Being Used in a Data Breach Lawsuit
Beth Burgin Waller, Chair, Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Practice , Woods Rogers PLC,  12/5/2019
Cybersecurity Team Holiday Guide: 2019 Gag Gift Edition
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  12/2/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19645
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
alter.c in SQLite through 3.30.1 allows attackers to trigger infinite recursion via certain types of self-referential views in conjunction with ALTER TABLE statements.
CVE-2019-19678
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
In "Xray Test Management for Jira" prior to version 3.5.5, remote authenticated attackers can cause XSS in the generic field entry point via the Generic Test Definition field of a new Generic Test issue.
CVE-2019-19679
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
In "Xray Test Management for Jira" prior to version 3.5.5, remote authenticated attackers can cause XSS in the Pre-Condition Summary entry point via the summary field of a Create Pre-Condition action for a new Test Issue.
CVE-2019-19647
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
radare2 through 4.0.0 lacks validation of the content variable in the function r_asm_pseudo_incbin at libr/asm/asm.c, ultimately leading to an arbitrary write. This allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via crafted input.
CVE-2019-19648
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
In the macho_parse_file functionality in macho/macho.c of YARA 3.11.0, command_size may be inconsistent with the real size. A specially crafted MachO file can cause an out-of-bounds memory access, resulting in Denial of Service (application crash) or potential code execution.