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
The Problem with Proprietary Testing: NSS Labs vs. CrowdStrike
Brian Monkman, Executive Director at NetSecOPEN,  7/19/2019
How Attackers Infiltrate the Supply Chain & What to Do About It
Shay Nahari, Head of Red-Team Services at CyberArk,  7/16/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
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-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
The Linux Foundation ONOS 1.15.0 and ealier is affected by: Improper Input Validation. The impact is: The attacker can remotely execute any commands by sending malicious http request to the controller. The component is: Method runJavaCompiler in YangLiveCompilerManager.java. The attack vector is: ne...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
Frog CMS 1.1 is affected by: Cross Site Scripting (XSS). The impact is: Cookie stealing, Alert pop-up on page, Redirecting to another phishing site, Executing browser exploits. The component is: Snippets.
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
Ilias 5.3 before 5.3.12; 5.2 before 5.2.21 is affected by: Cross Site Scripting (XSS) - CWE-79 Type 2: Stored XSS (or Persistent). The impact is: Execute code in the victim's browser. The component is: Assessment / TestQuestionPool. The attack vector is: Cloze Test Text gap (attacker) / Corrections ...
CVE-2019-9959
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
The JPXStream::init function in Poppler 0.78.0 and earlier doesn't check for negative values of stream length, leading to an Integer Overflow, thereby making it possible to allocate a large memory chunk on the heap, with a size controlled by an attacker, as demonstrated by pdftocairo.
CVE-2019-4236
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
A IBM Spectrum Protect 7.l client backup or archive operation running for an HP-UX VxFS object is silently skipping Access Control List (ACL) entries from backup or archive if there are more than twelve ACL entries associated with the object in total. As a result, it could allow a local attacker to ...