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

Gozi Trojan Using Dark Cloud Botnet in New Wave of Attacks

Gozi IFSB banking Trojan has rolled out new code, a new botnet and a high level of customization in the latest wave of attacks.

Gozi IFSB, a banking Trojan that has been making the rounds of the internet for several years, is back with new targets, new characteristics, and a new botnet for distribution. The changes, detailed by Talos Intelligence on Tuesday, serve to make the Trojan a more dangerous threat to a select group of victims.

Gozi IFSB has begun to use the Dark Cloud botnet in recent campaigns, a development that shows the attackers are moving to infrastructures that are associated with widespread criminal and malicious activity. Dark Cloud, which uses compromised personal computers as hosts for websites that change addresses every few minutes, is based primarily in Eastern Europe and Russia.

The most recent campaign uses individually targeted email messages with malicious Microsoft Word files as the delivery mechanism for the malware payload. 

"It's likely they built emails to resemble realistic email threads, appearing to reply to a victim’s previous question or request," says Talos threat researcher Holger Unterbrink, in an email interview with Dark Reading. "In other cases, they crafted email messages that are somehow related to the victims interests such as company-related information."

The level of customization indicates a high level of human involvement with the messages, rather than a mass spam email campaign. "We believe that they are using an obfuscator script/program. In many cases we looked at, they built different obfuscated docs for every single victim," says Unterbrink.

While there are a variety of different malicious payloads attached to the delivery systems, almost all are based on VBA scripts that use various methods of obfuscation and different execution patterns in attempts to evade detection in sandbox environments. Sophisticated current sandboxes and malware detection routines would almost certainly detect the activity, but simple or older technology could easily miss the operations.

Given the new payload and delivery mechanisms, what should organizations do to protect themselves from the latest wave of Gozi IFSB? "Use a multi-layer security architecture approach," says Unterbrink. "This means a mix of security protection devices/applications which are capable of communicating with each other. Companies need to realize that some attackers are using extremely sophisticated methods and/or rely on victims making mistakes (e.g. opening phishing emails). In a multi layer protected environment, even the side effects of successful attacks can be detected."

"Another important recommendation," he says, "is to focus on user education. Setup [sic] fake phishing campaigns or buy similar services to make your user aware of this threat."

Related Content:

Interop ITX 2018

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop ITX. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop ITX 2018 agenda here.

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
7 Tips for Infosec Pros Considering A Lateral Career Move
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2020
For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
IT 2020: A Look Ahead
Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-8003
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
A double-free vulnerability in vrend_renderer.c in virglrenderer through 0.8.1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service by triggering texture allocation failure, because vrend_renderer_resource_allocated_texture is not an appropriate place for a free.
CVE-2019-20427
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
In the Lustre file system before 2.12.3, the ptlrpc module has a buffer overflow and panic, and possibly remote code execution, due to the lack of validation for specific fields of packets sent by a client. Interaction between req_capsule_get_size and tgt_brw_write leads to a tgt_shortio2pages integ...
CVE-2019-20428
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
In the Lustre file system before 2.12.3, the ptlrpc module has an out-of-bounds read and panic due to the lack of validation for specific fields of packets sent by a client. The ldl_request_cancel function mishandles a large lock_count parameter.
CVE-2019-20429
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
In the Lustre file system before 2.12.3, the ptlrpc module has an out-of-bounds read and panic (via a modified lm_bufcount field) due to the lack of validation for specific fields of packets sent by a client. This is caused by interaction between sptlrpc_svc_unwrap_request and lustre_msg_hdr_size_v2...
CVE-2019-20430
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-27
In the Lustre file system before 2.12.3, the mdt module has an LBUG panic (via a large MDT Body eadatasize field) due to the lack of validation for specific fields of packets sent by a client.