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

12/20/2017
05:36 PM
Kelly Sheridan
Kelly Sheridan
Slideshows
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

9 Banking Trojans & Trends Costing Businesses in 2017

New Trojans appeared, old ones resurfaced, and delivery methods evolved as cybercriminals set their sights on financial data.
Previous
1 of 10
Next

(Image: Muratart via Shutterstock)

(Image: Muratart via Shutterstock)

Banking Trojans have been a recurring theme in security news this year as criminals find new ways to steal money and data from their victims.

"We have started to see the re-emergence of banker Trojans," says Bogdan Botezatu, senior e-threat analyst at Bitdefender, noting that banking Trojans had their heyday between 2012 and 2013. "But we could have sworn the trend was otherwise."

It's interesting to see banking Trojans resurface because of the resources they need to work. Unlike comparatively simple attacks like ransomware, banking malware requires several players and is difficult to launch and monetize. Botezatu suggests the rise could be attributed to both code leaks of other banking Trojans and an oversaturation of the ransomware market.

Many of the banking Trojans we've seen this year are reminiscent of those we've seen in the past. Others are old threats being distributed in new ways, targeting new victims.

Terdot, a banking Trojan first seen in October 2016, takes its inspiration from source code of the Zeus banking Trojan following Zeus' source code leak in 2011. IcedID, another new banking Trojan that emerged in September, shares traits with Gozi, Zeus, and Dridex.

"Overall, this is similar to other banking Trojans, but that's also where I see the problem," says Limor Kessem, executive security advisor for IBM Security, of IcedID. It's rare to see banking Trojans that don't share qualities with existing variants. Attackers are copying one another and adding new features like anti-evasion techniques to further advance the malware.

Here, we look back on the new and evolved ways banking Trojans targeted victims in 2017. Any threats we missed that should've made the list? Which do you think will stick around next year? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments and read on for more.

 

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 10
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
Data breaches and regulations have forced organizations to pay closer attention to the security incident response function. However, security leaders may be overestimating their ability to detect and respond to security incidents. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2016-11047
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
An issue was discovered on Samsung mobile devices with JBP(4.2) and KK(4.4) (Marvell chipsets) software. The ACIPC-MSOCKET driver allows local privilege escalation via a stack-based buffer overflow. The Samsung ID is SVE-2016-5393 (April 2016).
CVE-2016-11048
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
An issue was discovered on Samsung mobile devices with L(5.0/5.1) (Spreadtrum or Marvell chipsets) software. There is a Factory Reset Protection (FRP) bypass. The Samsung ID is SVE-2016-5421 (March 2016).
CVE-2016-11049
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
An issue was discovered on Samsung mobile devices with software through 2016-01-16 (Shannon333/308/310 chipsets). The IMEI may be retrieved and modified because of an error in managing key information. The Samsung ID is SVE-2016-5435 (March 2016).
CVE-2016-11050
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
An issue was discovered on Samsung mobile devices with S3(KK), Note2(KK), S4(L), Note3(L), and S5(L) software. An attacker can rewrite the IMEI by flashing crafted firmware. The Samsung ID is SVE-2016-5562 (March 2016).
CVE-2016-11051
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
An issue was discovered on Samsung mobile devices with J(4.2) (Qualcomm Wi-Fi chipsets) software. There is a buffer overflow in the Qualcomm WLAN Driver. The Samsung ID is SVE-2016-5326 (February 2016).